From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Cussins Subject: struct timespec as part of kernel/userspace ABI Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:02:21 +0000 Message-ID: <5502EDED.5030008@eml.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7856264FE3 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:02:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F8B2067F for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.2.10.211] (unknown [195.59.102.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D8D4BC00295 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:02:34 -0400 (EDT) List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: ALSA Development Mailing List List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi all, Like the other ALSA ioctls, the proposed start_at ioctl currently uses struct timespec. A reviewer (of the start_at patchset) has mentioned that communicating timespecs across the kernel/userspace boundary requires special 32bit/64bit compatibility handling (pcm_compat.c). I didn't appreciate this :( Should I follow the same pcm_compat.c pattern for dealing with timespecs for the proposed start_at ioctl? Cheers, Tim