[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24a6fd46a3383aa8d18d19511b8422baad37317c.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 16:02:46 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, "Ridoux,
Julien" <ridouxj@...zon.com>, virtio-dev@...ts.linux.dev, "Luu, Ryan"
<rluu@...zon.com>, "Chashper, David" <chashper@...zon.com>
Cc: "Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>, Jason Wang
<jasowang@...hat.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, "Michael S.
Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Thomas
Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Marc
Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Daniel
Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Alessandro Zummo
<a.zummo@...ertech.it>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support
On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 10:12 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 03.07.24 12:40, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >
> > This is what I currently have for 'struct vmclock_abi' that I'd like to
> > persuade you to adopt. I need to tweak it some more, for at least the
> > following reasons, as well as any more you can see:
> >
> > • size isn't big enough for 64KiB pages
> > • Should be explicitly little-endian
> > • Does it need esterror as well as maxerror?
>
> I have no opinion about this. I can drop esterror if unwanted.
I also don't care. I'm just observing the inconsistency.
> > • Why is maxerror in picoseconds? It's the only use of that unit
Between us we now have picoseconds, nanoseconds, (seconds >> 64) and
(seconds >> 64+n).
The power-of-two fractions seem to make a lot of sense for the counter
period, because they mean we don't have to perform divisions.
Does it makes sense to harmonise on (seconds >> 64) for all of the
fractional seconds? Again I don't have a strong opinion; I only want us
to have a *reason* for any differences that exist.
> > • Where do the clock_status values come from? Do they make sense?
> > • Are signed integers OK? (I think so!).
>
> Signed integers would need to be introduced to Virtio, which so far only
> uses explicitly unsigned types: u8, le16 etc.
Perhaps. Although it would also be possible (if not ideal) to define
that e.g. the tai_offset field is a 16-bit "unsigned" integer according
to virtio, but to be interpreted as follows:
If the number is <= 32767 then the TAI offset is that value, but if the
number is >= 32768 then the TAI offset is that value minus 65536.
Perhaps not pretty, but there isn't a *fundamental* dependency on
virtio supporting signed integers as a primary type.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists