Re: [PATCH 1/3] cobalt uapi: Introducing new feature flag for settime64 availability

["florian.bezdeka@siemens.com" <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>]

On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 14:25 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 13.11.20 13:00, florian.bezdeka--- via Xenomai wrote:
> > From: Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>
> > 
> > Adding a new feature flag to allow the library asking for settime64
> > support. That will allow the library to use the new system call if
> > it
> > is available / supported by the kernel.
> > 
> 
> As proposed in the other thread, we should state that this flag is
> supposed to be dropped on the next major ABI revision update.

I agree. The ABI revision of all supported architectures has to be
incremented when removing this flag. 

How do we make sure that the necessary steps are taken once the next
major release process starts? Is there some kind of "next major branch"
available where we could apply patches to after settime64 stuff was
merged to "next"?

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>
> > ---
> >  include/cobalt/uapi/asm-generic/features.h | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/cobalt/uapi/asm-generic/features.h
> > b/include/cobalt/uapi/asm-generic/features.h
> > index 8a4927c49..93a96670a 100644
> > --- a/include/cobalt/uapi/asm-generic/features.h
> > +++ b/include/cobalt/uapi/asm-generic/features.h
> > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ struct cobalt_featinfo {
> >  #define __xn_feat_nofastsynch 0x10000000
> >  #define __xn_feat_control     0x08000000
> >  #define __xn_feat_prioceiling 0x04000000
> > +#define __xn_feat_settime64   0x02000000
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >  #define __xn_feat_smp_mask __xn_feat_smp
> > @@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ struct cobalt_featinfo {
> >  #define __xn_feat_generic_mask			\
> >  	(__xn_feat_smp_mask		|	\
> >  	 __xn_feat_fastsynch_mask 	|	\
> > -	 __xn_feat_prioceiling)
> > +	 __xn_feat_prioceiling		|	\
> > +	 __xn_feat_settime64 )
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * List of features both sides have to agree on: If userland
> > supports
> > @@ -101,6 +103,8 @@ const char *get_generic_feature_label(unsigned
> > int feature)
> >  		return "control";
> >  	case __xn_feat_prioceiling:
> >  		return "prioceiling";
> > +	case __xn_feat_settime64:
> > +		return "settime64";
> >  	default:
> >  		return 0;
> >  	}
> > 
> 
> Jan