From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
Cc: shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
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: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:45:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <75e632e3-3353-414d-9b8a-8bf9ca46b5a4@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251130105842.GD31522@1wt.eu>
On Sun, Nov 30, 2025, at 11:58, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 05:59:15PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>> 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()) ?
As far as I can tell, it's the other way round for suseconds_t,
which in glibc is defined as
#if __TIMESIZE == 64 && __WORDSIZE == 32
# define __TIME_T_TYPE __SQUAD_TYPE
# define __SUSECONDS_T_TYPE __SQUAD_TYPE
#else
# define __TIME_T_TYPE __SLONGWORD_TYPE
# define __SUSECONDS_T_TYPE __SLONGWORD_TYPE
#endif
so this one is explicitly the same width as tv_sec, which has all
the issues you listed, but avoids the need for padding.
As far as I remember, the one reason for having a 'long tv_nsec'
with complex padding in glibc and musl is that this is actually
required by both Unix[1] and C11/C11 [2] standards.
C23 has updated the definition and does allow int64_t tv_nsec.
I think it makes sense for nolibc to just follow the kernel's
definition here.
Arnd
[1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/time.h.html
[2] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/chrono/timespec.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-01 7:45 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
2025-12-01 7:45 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
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=75e632e3-3353-414d-9b8a-8bf9ca46b5a4@app.fastmail.com \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/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