The more I think about it, the more we should just delete everything form the #elif to the #endif at the end. That's super old compilers, which I'd like to just drop entirely from cdefs.h.

In D45646#1041345, @bz wrote:

Thanks for doing all this finding all bittlies and places!

I have a question? Do we need n+1 commits or can we squash them all and do it atomically? We live in git times and not CVS anymore so we could actually make use of it all going cleanly at once.

In some ways this is a more general observation but maybe people on Reviewers have an opinion too for now or the future.

I could go either way, so whatever you decide.

Looks good so far, with the one comnent addressed

So we have no old binaries with the *_block symbols to resolve? I'm skeptical of that notion.

Rebase on top of Chuck's device name changes.

update, per chuck's feedback. Used &0xffff instead of his suggestion
to match the rest of the file.

I think this is what I asked for! Thanks!

This is 100% correct, wearing my time geek hat.

What are the plans for defined(SOFTFLOAT_FOR_GCC)? I Think that and SOFTFP_ABI can also be retired.

It's like OKish as is, but a tuneable would let our future selves have an easy-to-deploy diagnostic workaround should this guess become incorrect in the future.

In D45545#1039163, @jamie wrote:

Is there any value in a virtual time, i.e. letting a jail have its own clock? Apart from a test framework, I can't think of any, but maybe someone else can. That was actually my first thought when I saw the title of this, rather than encapsulating ntpd.

I don't think this is good policy, as is. I like being able to delegate to the jails, but I thing it's really bad to conflate settime and adjtime. The two are different, though related, things.

Still needs a positive review and can't be contested on github.

In D44893#1036933, @dg612_cam.ac.uk wrote:

@imp I wonder if you could help me commit this patch, since I don't have push rights to FreeBSD. Thanks!

I rather like this for some reason.

In D45303#1037067, @brooks wrote:

I wonder if we want a local #define __writeonly __unused for documentation purposes.

OK. This looks ready to go then. Sorry for my slowness in responding