From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rusage: allow 64-bit times ru_utime/ru_stime
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:11:21 +0200
Message-ID: <20180621161121.GB7222@gmail.com>
References: <20180420120605.1612248-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20180420120605.1612248-2-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20180621154915.GA31947@gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1QYTfRNQt2+a29BpvgYM_pnSFrO=NBvVo=BdUa2q9ngQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=+54n0k7sEulwq3QZLnsCVyStIJliGZUVt+1mCsU/M8g=;
        b=AkUaQyWEaUBzJgKTiKat8/m8lfzRW6KMPcCP/pcHNF3B4wQH3kbHZ8iJQYYxpMkiex
         nR6wKzLROToQieLyqAHkmE+PKMmyXc8YF6vNgl0B99/S0sRx6cnKmO8GmMRYSyKzuvDa
         SmRjZCVwdK4C/MVCoVJ2MA7zPQgwiDfSFMaQyurukp1wVM1KKGVYJV2OvZxFRQB8fwew
         71Em2zRSsIyL0QmwO1DM2nYLfCdU5tSEOAQMVl6QM13B90MdmU5eMRJcOGGqBJI+vOgX
         1muQVqMhz8O3xOyw01d+RkTMSxLghSNMzbfA6WbsTQNsmhGcK09omYVZUEq/HC2wLWoZ
         7PfA==
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1QYTfRNQt2+a29BpvgYM_pnSFrO=NBvVo=BdUa2q9ngQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-alpha.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: y2038 Mailman List <y2038@lists.linaro.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>


* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

> Sure, no problem. Do you have an opinion on the question I raised in the
> first patch [1], i.e. whether we actually want this to be done this way in the
> kernel, or one of the other approaches I described there?

So this looks like the most forward looking variant:

> a) deprecate the wait4() and getrusage() system calls, and create
>    a set of kernel interfaces based around a newly defined structure that
>    could solve multiple problems at once, e.g. provide more fine-grained
>    timestamps. The C library could then implement the posix interfaces
>    on top of the new system calls.

... but given the pretty long propagation time of new ABIs, is this a good 
solution? What would the limitations/trade-offs be on old-ABI systems?

Thanks,

	Ingo