From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: y2038 Mailman List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux API , linux-arch , Paul Eggert , "Eric W . Biederman" , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Al Viro , Dominik Brodowski , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Deepa Dinamani List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org * Arnd Bergmann 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com ([209.85.128.196]:35225 "EHLO mail-wr0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932858AbeFUQL0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:11:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:11:21 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rusage: allow 64-bit times ru_utime/ru_stime Message-ID: <20180621161121.GB7222@gmail.com> References: <20180420120605.1612248-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180420120605.1612248-2-arnd@arndb.de> <20180621154915.GA31947@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: y2038 Mailman List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux API , linux-arch , Paul Eggert , "Eric W . Biederman" , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Al Viro , Dominik Brodowski , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Deepa Dinamani Message-ID: <20180621161121.quUV4Ad3WNdRccpY7hN1h8ybbxVyRWZ6jtl6IUCAdAg@z> * Arnd Bergmann 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