From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D12C433EF for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237166AbiDEOJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:09:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51332 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1386845AbiDEM6M (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:58:12 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:520::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D515DF956D for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 05:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nbhtO-0004VZ-BD; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 14:02:38 +0200 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:02:38 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Lukas Straub Cc: Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: meta time broken Message-ID: <20220405120238.GF12048@breakpoint.cc> References: <20220405011705.1257ac40@gecko> <20220405013128.0bb907e2@gecko> <20220405111645.GB12048@breakpoint.cc> <20220405114115.33c7d5d0@gecko> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220405114115.33c7d5d0@gecko> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Lukas Straub wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:16:45 +0200 > Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Lukas Straub wrote: > > > Hmm, after staring at the code for a bit. I could imagine it's due to > > > time_t being 32 bit on my platform and nftables trying to stuff a unix > > > timstamp with nanosecond resolution in it... > > > > Will you send a patch? > > Yes, I already sent one. The mailing list seems to be a bit flacky, did > you get it? No, but its in patchwork. Patch gives following warning: meta.c:449:56: warning: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: 'uint64_t' {aka 'long unsigned int'} and 'int' [-Wsign-compare] 449 | if ((tstamp = parse_iso_date(sym->identifier)) != -1) Would you mind sending a v2? I'd suggest to change parse_iso_date() to split return value and converted value, for example: static time_t parse_iso_date(const char *sym) -> static bool parse_iso_data(uint64_t *res, const char *sym) or similar.