Re: [PATCH 6/6] cputime: Introduce cputime_to_timespec64()/timespec64_to_cputime()

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
> On 15 July 2015 at 19:55, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 July 2015 at 18:31, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The cputime_to_timespec() and timespec_to_cputime() functions are
> >> >> not year 2038 safe on 32bit systems due to that the struct timepsec
> >> >> will overflow in 2038 year.
> >> >
> >> > And how is this relevant? cputime is not based on wall clock time at
> >> > all. So what has 2038 to do with cputime?
> >> >
> >> > We want proper explanations WHY we need such a change.
> >>
> >> When converting the posix-cpu-timers, it call the
> >> cputime_to_timespec() function. Thus it need a conversion for this
> >> function.
> >
> > There is no requirement to convert posix-cpu-timers on their own. We
> > need to adopt the posix cpu timers code because it shares syscalls
> > with the other posix timers, but that still does not explain why we
> > need these functions.
> >
> 
> In posix-cpu-timers, it also defined some 'k_clock struct' variables,
> and we need to convert the callbacks of the 'k_clock struct' which are
> not year 2038 safe on 32bit systems. Some callbacks which need to
> convert call the cputime_to_timespec() function, thus we also want to
> convert the cputime_to_timespec() function to a year 2038 safe
> function to make all them ready for the year 2038 issue.

You are not getting it at all.

1) We need to change k_clock callbacks due to 2038 issues

2) posix cpu timers implement affected callbacks

3) posix cpu timers themself and cputime are NOT affected by 2038

So we have 2 options to change the code in posix cpu timers:

   A) Do the timespec/timespec64 conversion in the posix cpu timer
      callbacks and leave the cputime functions untouched.

   B) Implement cputime/timespec64 functions to avoid #A

   If you go for #B, you need to provide a reasonable explanation why
   it is better than #A. And that explanation has absolutely nothing
   to do with 2038 safety.

Not everything is a 2038 issue, just because the only tool you have is
a timespec64.

Thanks,

	tglx