From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Cc: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] input: Deprecate real timestamps beyond year 2106
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:44:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2186645.hbFdEOdHp0@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161028044642.GA28017@jelly>
On Friday, October 28, 2016 2:46:42 PM CEST Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:24:55PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Peter Hutterer
> > <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:27:32PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > > general comment here - please don't name it "raw_input_event".
> > > First, when you grep for input_event you want the new ones to show up too,
> > > so a struct input_event_raw would be better here. That also has better
> > > namespacing in general. Second though: the event isn't any more "raw" than
> > > the previous we had.
> > >
> > > I can't think of anything better than struct input_event_v2 though.
> >
> > The general idea was to leave the original struct input_event as a
> > common interface for userspace (as it cannot be deleted).
> > So reading raw data unformatted by the userspace will have the new
> > struct raw_input_event format.
> > This was the reason for the "raw" in the name.
> >
> > struct input_event_v2 is fine too, if this is more preferred.
I think input_event_v2 would be more confusing. An alternative
to raw_input_event might be __kernel_input_event, which parallels
things like __kernel_off_t that is also independent from the user
space off_t in the same way that the user space input_event
structure will get redefined in a way that is incompatible with
the kernel ABI.
> > >> This replaces timeval with struct input_timeval. This structure
> > >> maintains time in __kernel_ulong_t or compat_ulong_t to allow
> > >> for architectures to override types as in the case of x32.
> > >>
> > >> The change requires any userspace utilities reading or writing
> > >> from event nodes to update their reading format to match
> > >> raw_input_event. The changes to the popular libraries will be
> > >> posted along with the kernel changes.
> > >> The driver version is also updated to reflect the change in
> > >> event format.
> > >
> > > Doesn't this break *all* of userspace then? I don't see anything to
> > > negotiate the type of input event the kernel gives me. And nothing right now
> > > checks for EVDEV_VERSION, so they all just assume it's a struct
> > > input_event. Best case, if the available events aren't a multiple of
> > > sizeof(struct input_event) userspace will bomb out, but unless that happens,
> > > everyone will just happily read old-style events.
> > >
> > > So we need some negotiation what is acceptable. Which also needs to address
> > > the race conditions we're going to get when events start coming in before
> > > the client has announced that it supports the new-style events.
> >
> > No, this does not break any userspace right now.
> > Both struct input_event and struct raw_input_event are exactly the same today.
>
> oh, right, the ABI is the same. I see that now, thanks.
One minor difference is that the seconds in raw_input_event are
'unsigned', so even with the 'real' time domain, we can represent
times from 1970 to 2106, whereas 'timeval' represents times between
1902 and 2038.
Once user space has a 64-bit time_t and the conversion function
in libinput that Deepa suggested, the raw_input_event is only
used on the kernel ABI and the normal timestamps will work fine.
> > And, hence any library that results in a call to libevdev_set_fd()
> > will fail if it is not this updated driver.
>
> without having seen the libevdev patch - that sounds like a bad idea . there
> are plenty of usecases where libevdev_set_fd() is called but timestamps in
> events just don't matter. So we may need need some more negotiation between
> the library user, libevdev and the kernel.
I also don't see any strict dependency at all: the binary data format
has not changed, and I agree we absolutely should not break running
a newly built library on old kernels.
We can also safely assume that any user space that is actually built
for 64-bit time_t is also running on a recent enough kernel,
as today's kernels do not support 64-bit time_t yet.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-28 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-18 3:27 [PATCH v2 0/4] Make input drivers y2038 safe Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-18 3:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] uinput: Add ioctl for using monotonic/ boot times Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-27 1:45 ` Peter Hutterer
2016-10-27 20:39 ` Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-28 4:32 ` Peter Hutterer
2016-10-18 3:27 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] input: evdev: Replace timeval with timespec64 Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-27 1:34 ` Peter Hutterer
2016-10-27 11:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-18 3:27 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] input: Deprecate real timestamps beyond year 2106 Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-27 2:24 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2016-10-27 22:25 ` Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-27 23:12 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2016-10-28 12:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-30 4:34 ` Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-27 2:56 ` Peter Hutterer
2016-10-27 22:24 ` Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-28 4:46 ` Peter Hutterer
2016-10-28 12:44 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2016-10-30 4:19 ` Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-31 10:30 ` Peter Hutterer
2016-10-28 12:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-28 15:19 ` Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-28 15:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-28 21:39 ` Deepa Dinamani
2016-10-28 21:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-28 21:56 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2016-10-28 22:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-18 3:27 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] input: serio: Replace timeval by timespec64 Deepa Dinamani
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=2186645.hbFdEOdHp0@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter.hutterer@who-t.net \
--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).