From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] tools/nolibc: always use 64-bit time types
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 11:58:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251130105842.GD31522@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251122-nolibc-uapi-types-v2-9-b814a43654f5@weissschuh.net>
Hi Thomas,
On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 05:59:15PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> 32-bit time types will stop working in 2038.
>
> Switch to 64-bit time types everywhere.
>
> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cec27d94-c99d-4c57-9a12-275ea663dda8@app.fastmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
> ---
> tools/include/nolibc/std.h | 2 +-
> tools/include/nolibc/types.h | 9 +++++----
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/std.h b/tools/include/nolibc/std.h
> index 392f4dd94158..b9a116123902 100644
> --- a/tools/include/nolibc/std.h
> +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/std.h
> @@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ typedef unsigned long nlink_t;
> typedef int64_t off_t;
> typedef signed long blksize_t;
> typedef signed long blkcnt_t;
> -typedef __kernel_time_t time_t;
> +typedef __kernel_time64_t time_t;
>
> #endif /* _NOLIBC_STD_H */
> diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/types.h b/tools/include/nolibc/types.h
> index 5d180ffabcb6..8f3cb18df7f1 100644
> --- a/tools/include/nolibc/types.h
> +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/types.h
> @@ -17,14 +17,15 @@
> #include <linux/wait.h>
>
> struct timespec {
> - __kernel_old_time_t tv_sec;
> - long tv_nsec;
> + time_t tv_sec;
> + int64_t tv_nsec;
> };
> #define _STRUCT_TIMESPEC
>
> +/* Never use with system calls */
> struct timeval {
> - __kernel_old_time_t tv_sec;
> - __kernel_suseconds_t tv_usec;
> + time_t tv_sec;
> + int64_t tv_usec;
> };
It seems to me that glibc continues to make the effort of using a long
for tv_usec and tv_nsec. At least I'm seeing how that can make a
difference for application code given that these fields are constantly
multiplied or divided, forcing them to 64-bit when we know they'll never
be larger than 1 billion is extra burden for the application. Another
reason might be that the definition really changed from long to suseconds_t
in timeval a while ago, it's possible that it's used as a long in various
APIs (or even just printf formats).
IMHO it would be cleaner to keep it as a long here, or do you have a
particular reason for wanting int64_t (which BTW already forced a cast
in sys_gettimeofday()) ?
Thanks,
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-30 10:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-22 16:59 [PATCH v2 00/13] tools/nolibc: always use 64-bit time-related types Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] tools/nolibc/poll: use kernel types for system call invocations Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] tools/nolibc/poll: drop __NR_poll fallback Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] tools/nolibc/select: drop non-pselect based implementations Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] tools/nolibc/time: drop invocation of gettimeofday system call Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-30 10:42 ` Willy Tarreau
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 05/13] tools/nolibc: prefer explicit 64-bit time-related system calls Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] tools/nolibc/gettimeofday: avoid libgcc 64-bit divisions Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] tools/nolibc/select: avoid libgcc 64-bit multiplications Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] tools/nolibc: use custom structs timespec and timeval Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] tools/nolibc: always use 64-bit time types Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-30 10:58 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2025-12-01 7:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-12-01 10:35 ` Willy Tarreau
2025-12-01 10:53 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] selftests/nolibc: test compatibility of nolibc and kernel " Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] tools/nolibc: remove time conversions Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 12/13] tools/nolibc: add __nolibc_static_assert() Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-30 11:08 ` Willy Tarreau
2025-12-03 19:19 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-12-03 19:23 ` Willy Tarreau
2025-12-03 20:08 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-22 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] selftests/nolibc: add static assertions around time types handling Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-30 11:10 ` [PATCH v2 00/13] tools/nolibc: always use 64-bit time-related types Willy Tarreau
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=20251130105842.GD31522@1wt.eu \
--to=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=shuah@kernel.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