linux-api.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: y2038@lists.linaro.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	"Alexander Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Stefan Bühler" <source@stbuehler.de>,
	"Hannes Reinecke" <hare@suse.com>,
	"Jackie Liu" <liuyun01@kylinos.cn>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Hristo Venev" <hristo@venev.name>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: use __kernel_timespec in timeout ABI
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 08:09:19 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8d5d34da-e1f0-1ab5-461e-f3145e52c48a@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190930202055.1748710-1-arnd@arndb.de>

On 9/30/19 2:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> All system calls use struct __kernel_timespec instead of the old struct
> timespec, but this one was just added with the old-style ABI. Change it
> now to enforce the use of __kernel_timespec, avoiding ABI confusion and
> the need for compat handlers on 32-bit architectures.
> 
> Any user space caller will have to use __kernel_timespec now, but this
> is unambiguous and works for any C library regardless of the time_t
> definition. A nicer way to specify the timeout would have been a less
> ambiguous 64-bit nanosecond value, but I suppose it's too late now to
> change that as this would impact both 32-bit and 64-bit users.

Thanks for catching that, Arnd. Applied.

-- 
Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-01 14:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-30 20:20 [PATCH] io_uring: use __kernel_timespec in timeout ABI Arnd Bergmann
2019-10-01 14:09 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2019-10-01 15:38   ` Jens Axboe
2019-10-01 15:49     ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-10-01 15:52       ` Jens Axboe
2019-10-01 15:57         ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-10-01 16:02           ` Jens Axboe
2019-10-01 16:07       ` Florian Weimer
2019-10-01 18:08         ` Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8d5d34da-e1f0-1ab5-461e-f3145e52c48a@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=hare@suse.com \
    --cc=hristo@venev.name \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=liuyun01@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=source@stbuehler.de \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=y2038@lists.linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).