From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:49614 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751474AbdFZCfa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 25 Jun 2017 22:35:30 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 03:35:25 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        john.stultz@linaro.org, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        y2038@lists.linaro.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls
Message-ID: <20170626023525.GY10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20170624184508.21500-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170624184508.21500-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45:01AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> The series aims at isolating data conversions of time_t based structures:
> struct timespec and struct itimerspec at user space boundaries.
> This helps to later change the underlying types to handle y2038 changes
> to these.

Nice...  A few questions:

* what about setitimer(2)?  Right now that's the only remaining user of
get_compat_itimerval(); similar for getitimer(2) and put_compat_itimerval().

* you have two callers of get_compat_itimerspec64(); one is followed by
itimerspec64_valid(), another - by its open-coded analogue.  The same
goes for get_itimerspec64(); wouldn't it be better to have both check
the validity immediately and simply fail with -EINVAL?  Matter of taste,
but...

* should __sys_recvmmsg() switch to timespec64?