rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 348 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn b/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 407a104c..00000000
--- a/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,348 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2013, 2014 Free Software Foundation,
-Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!meta title="clock_gettime"]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_glibc open_issue_gnumach]]
-
-Missing `clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC)` (e.g. for iceweasel)
-
-It could be a mere matter of extending the
-[[mapped-time_interface|microkernel/mach/gnumach/interface/device/time]]:
-add it to
-`mapped_time_value_t` in gnumach, handle it in `gnumach/kern/mach_clock.c`, and
-make `clock_gettime` use it.
-
-BTW, also make `gettimeofday()` use it, since it's way more efficient and some
-applications assume that it is.
-
-What about adding a nanosecond-precision clock, too?  --[[tschwinge]]
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-26
-
-    < pinotree> youpi: thing is: apparently i found a simple way to have a
-      monotonic clock as mmap-able device inside gnumach
-    < pinotree> currently, in kern/mach_clock.c there's a variable 'time',
-      which gets increased on clock interrupt, and optionally modified by
-      host_set_time
-    < pinotree> ()
-    < pinotree> if i add a new variable next to it, only increasing it on
-      interrupt but not modifying it at all otherwise, would that give me a
-      monotonic clock?
-    < pinotree> at least on sme basic tests i did, it seems it could work that
-      way
-    < youpi> yes, it should work
-    < braunr> sure
-    < youpi> and that's the way I was considering implementing it
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-06
-
-    <pinotree> yeah, i had a draft of improved idea for also handling
-      nanoseconds
-    <tschwinge> pinotree: Ah, nice, I thought about nanoseconds as well.
-    <tschwinge> pinotree, youpi: This memory page is all-zero by default,
-      right?
-    <tschwinge> Can't we then say that its last int is a version code, and if
-      it is 0 (as it is now), we only have the normal mapped time field, if it
-      is 1, we also have the monotonic cliock and ns precision on address 8 and
-      16 (or whatever)?
-    <tschwinge> In case that isn't your plan anyway.
-    <youpi> it's all-zero, yes
-    <tschwinge> Or, we say if a field is != 0 it is valid.
-    <youpi> making the last int a version code limits the size to one page
-    <youpi> I was thinking a field != 0  being valid is simpler
-    <youpi> but it's probably a problem too
-    <youpi> in that glibc usually caches whether interfaces are supported
-    <tschwinge> Wrap-around?
-    <youpi> for some clocks, it may be valid that the value is 0
-    <youpi> wrap-around is another issue too
-    <tschwinge> Well, then we can do the version-field thing, but put it right
-      after the current time field (address 8, I think)?
-    <youpi> yes
-    <youpi> it's a bit ugly, but it's hidden behind the structure
-    <tschwinge> It's not too bad, I think.
-    <youpi> yes
-    <tschwinge> And it will forever be a witness of the evolving of this
-      map_time interface.  :-)
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-11
-
-In context of [[select]].
-
-    <pinotree> braunr: would you send for review (and inclusion) your
-      time_data_t addition?
-    <pinotree> this way we could add nanosecs-based utime rpc (and then their
-      implementation in libc)
-    <braunr> pinotree: it's part of the hurd branch
-    <braunr> do you want it sent separately ?
-    <pinotree> yeah
-    <braunr> ok
-    <braunr> let me get it right first :)
-    <pinotree> sure :)
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-12
-
-    <braunr> pinotree:
-      http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/hurd.git/commit/?h=rbraun/select_timeout_pthread_v2&id=6ec50e62d9792c803d00cbff1cab2c0b3675690a
-    <pinotree> uh nice
-    <pinotree> will need two small inline functions to convert time_data_t <->
-      timespec, but that's it
-    <braunr> hm right
-    <braunr> i could have thought about it
-    <braunr> but i'll leave it for another patch :p
-    <pinotree> oh sure, no hurry
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-19
-
-    <youpi> braunr: about time_data_t, I get it's needed that it be an array
-    <youpi> so it can be passed by reference, not by value?
-    <braunr> by address, yes
-    <braunr> that's the difference between array and struct
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-25
-
-    <youpi> braunr: why did you want to see time_data passed as pointer, not as
-      struct?
-    <braunr> to microoptimize
-    <braunr> the struct is 2 64-bit integers
-    <youpi> well, we already pass structs along in a few cases,
-      e.g. io_statbuf_t, rusage_t, etc.
-    <youpi> be it written t[0].sec or t->sec, it seems odd
-    <youpi> copying 2 64bit integers is not much compared to the potential for
-      bugs here
-    <braunr> bugs ?
-    <youpi> yes, as in trying to access t[1], passing a wrong pointer, etc.
-    <youpi> or the reader frowning on "why is this case different than the
-      others?"
-    <braunr> well, i'm already usually frowning when i see what mig does ..
-    <youpi> right
-    <youpi> on the plus side, it's only the client side, i.e. mostly glibc,
-      which sees the t[0]
-    <braunr> and the practice established by my patch is to convert to struct
-      timespec as soon as possible
-    <braunr> the direct use of this type is therefore limited
-    <youpi> could we define time_data_t as a struct time_data * instead of
-      struct time_data[1] ?
-    <youpi> (in the.h)
-    <youpi> that would make more sense to define a struct time_data, and pass a
-      pointer to it
-    <braunr> i'm not sure
-    <braunr> the mach server writing guide was very clear about array implying
-      a C array too
-    <braunr> and i remember having compilation problems before doing that
-    <braunr> but i don't remember their nature exactly 
-    <youpi> I'm not sure to understand what you said about converting to struct
-      timespec
-    <youpi> what makes it not possible now?
-    <youpi> and what is the relation with being an array or a pointer?
-    <braunr> concerning struct timespec, what i mean is that the functions
-      called by the mig stub code directly convert time_data_t to a struct
-      timespec (which is the real type used throughout the hurd code)
-    <braunr> about the rest, i'm not sure, i'd have to try again
-    <braunr> mig just assumes it's an array
-    <youpi> and why not just using struct timespec?
-    <youpi> (for the mig type too)
-    <braunr> my brain can't correctly compute variable sized types in mig
-      definition files
-    <braunr> i wanted something that would remain correct for the 64-bit port
-
-[[64-bit_port]], [[mig_portable_rpc_declarations]].
-
-    <youpi> ah, you mean because tv_nsec is a long, which will not be the same
-      type?
-    <braunr> and tv_sec being a time_t (thus a long too)
-    <youpi> but we have the same issue e.g. for the rusage structure, don't we?
-    <braunr> yes
-    <youpi> so we'll have to fix things for that too anyway
-    <braunr> sure
-    <youpi> making a special case will not necessarily help
-    <braunr> but it doesn't mean new interfaces have to be buggy too
-    <youpi> well, using the proper type in the server itself is nicer
-    <youpi> instead of having to convert
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> i'm not exactly sure where to declare struct timespec then
-    <braunr> should it be declared in hurd_types.h, and simply reused by the
-      libc headers ?
-    <youpi> ? AIUI, it's the converse, hurd_types.h uses the struct timespec
-      from libc headers, and defines timespec_t
-    <braunr> ok
-    <youpi> timespec_t being the internal type whose definition gets done right
-      for mig to do the right thing
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> i see
-    <braunr> so, you'd like a struct of integer_t instead of an array of
-      signed64
-    <youpi> for our current 32bit userland yes
-    <braunr> do you want to make the changes yourself or should i add a new
-      branch ?
-    <youpi> and we'll make that a 64bit struct when we have a64bit userland
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-04-06
-
-    <tschwinge> pinotree: You had once been working on adding nsec-procision
-      timestamps to GNU Mach's maptime interface (or what the name is).  Is
-      that blocked on something or just waiting to be continued?
-    <pinotree> blocked on me needing to learn more the proper way to do
-      "atomic" update of the struct with time :)
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-04
-
-    <teythoon> do we have CLOCK_MONOTONIC ?
-    <braunr> teythoon: i think we do but it's actually a simple offset from
-      CLOCK_REALTIME .. :)
-    <teythoon> ah never mind, I do hate this posix time interface anyways
-    <braunr> really ?
-    <braunr> i think librt is decent
-
-
-# Candidate for [[vDSO]] code?
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-23
-
-    <desrt> GLib (gthread-posix.c): Unexpected error from C library during
-      'pthread_condattr_setclock': Invalid argument.  Aborting.
-    <desrt> uh oh...
-    <desrt> time to go digging in glibc i guess...
-    <braunr> what are you trying to run ?
-    <desrt> glib
-    <braunr> with what ?
-    <desrt> just running glib's test suite under jhbuild
-    <desrt> i maintain glib and i made some changes recently -- i wanted to
-      make sure they didn't break the hurd
-    <desrt> and it seems they have ;/
-    <braunr> well
-    <braunr> the hurd doesn't completely comply with posix 2008
-    <desrt> long story short: we've keyed our timed waits on condition
-      variables to the monotonic clock for a long time now, but we never tested
-      that it actually worked
-    <desrt> so i just added an assert -- and indeed it fails on hurd
-    <braunr> our glibc lies about supporting timers
-    <braunr> good thinking
-    <braunr> we don't support the monotonic clock
-    <desrt> clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) seems to work
-    <braunr> and you should know that, even if clock selection and timers are
-      available (which posix 2008 requires), it's still optional
-    <braunr> no, glibc lies
-    <desrt> !!
-    <braunr> our "support" is a mere hack shifting CLOCK_REALTIME
-    <desrt> it should at least lie consistently :)
-    <braunr> we need to implement CLOCK_MONOTONIC properly
-    <desrt> ya... that would be very nice indeed
-    <braunr> not that hard either
-    <desrt> i agree!
-    <braunr> we just have to do it right
-    <desrt> fwiw, i plan to keep this assert in glib
-    <braunr> yes, it's good
-    <desrt> is there anywhere i can file a bug to give you guys some advance
-      warning?
-    <braunr> i don't think it's needed
-    <braunr> we know the problem
-    <desrt> k -- consider yourself warned, then :)
-    <braunr> and it's been a bigger concern recently
-    <desrt> awesome.  glad i don't have to do anything :)
-    <braunr> if it's not already done, i suggest you check for the
-      CLOCK_MONOTONIC option
-    <desrt> fwiw, i'm trying to get a regular debian/gnu/hurd build of
-      glib/gtk/etc setup
-    <braunr> regular ?
-    <desrt> ya... out of git master on a daily basis
-    <braunr> from sources ?
-    <braunr> oh nice
-    <desrt> we recently set this up for freebsd as well
-    <braunr> few maintainers take the pain :)
-    <desrt> our non-linux 'problem discovery' is a bit crap before now :/
-    <braunr> i guess that's pretty normal
-    <braunr> i don't consider it the responsibility of the maintainers to test
-      every possible platform
-    <desrt> glib is a bit unique -- portability is our business
-    <braunr> taking our patches into consideration is what we ask most
-    <braunr> right
-    <desrt> and the "please take the patches" thing is something we want to
-      stop doing
-    <braunr> why ?
-    <desrt> mostly because we often look at a patch that someone sent a few
-      years ago and say "do we even still need this?"
-    <desrt> and have no way to know
-    <braunr> uh
-    <desrt> you would not believe how many patches like this we've
-      accumulated...
-    <braunr> but if we send it now ? :)
-    <desrt> braunr: new policy is roughly this:
-      https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GLib/SupportedPlatforms
-    <desrt> ie: fixes for issues that are general portability improvements and
-      POSIX compliance are welcome...
-    <desrt> patches that introduce platform-specific #ifdef sections are
-      rejected unless we have a regular builder to test that code
-    <braunr> i see
-    <braunr> again, regarding portability, don't consider CLOCK_MONOTONIC to be
-      readily available, check for it
-    <braunr> an #error would be enough but it has to be checked
-    <desrt> it basically comes down to: we don't want to have code in our
-      version control that we have no possible way of testing
-    <braunr> yes
-    <desrt> braunr: we do check for it
-    <braunr> ok
-    <desrt> we assert() if clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) fails
-    <braunr> no i mean
-    <desrt> as POSIX said it should if CLOCK_MONOTONIC is not supported
-    <desrt> if you lie to us.... well, not much we can do
-    <braunr> POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK
-    <braunr> _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK
-    <desrt> this is actually defined to 0 on most platforms...
-    <desrt> which does not mean that it's unsupported -- it means that the
-      runtime must be ready to deal with it not actually existing at runtime
-    <braunr> really ?
-    <desrt> yes
-    <desrt> we used to rely on this and got a bug that we were doing it wrong
-      :)
-    <desrt> and indeed, even on linux, both with glibc and uclibc:
-    <desrt> /usr/include/bits/posix_opt.h:#define _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK
-      0
-    <desrt> /usr/include/uClibc/bits/posix_opt.h:#define _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK
-      0
-    <braunr> ok it's described in 2.1.6 Options
-    <braunr> so your check is appropriate
-    <desrt> so does clock_gettime(MONOTONIC) on debian/hurd get me realtime?
-    <braunr> either that, or a value shifted from it
-    <desrt> if so, i'll just hack out the condattr_setclock() check and proceed
-      trying to build past glib...
-    * desrt checks
-    <desrt> as it is, even the build of glib fails since we use some tools
-      linked against ourselves during the build process...
-    <desrt> 1393124084790000 1393124084790000
-    <desrt> those look the same....
-    <braunr> heh
-    <desrt> i also notice that your clocks are not very high precision :)
-    <braunr> that's right
-    <desrt> HZ = 100, i guess
-    <braunr> yes
-    <desrt> fair enough
-    <desrt> our mainloop doesn't support better-than-millisecond accuracy yet
-      anyway :)
-    <desrt> (although it will soon...)
-    <braunr> nice
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-03-05
-
-    <desrt> braunr: bit of a warning: i released the glib that depends on
-      working pthread_condattr_setclock(..._MONOTONIC) and pochu said that it
-      will be landing in debian within the next days
-    <braunr> desrt: ok