Re: [PATCH] Some clean up of the time code.

[george anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> george anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:
> 
>>-void do_settimeofday(struct timeval *tv)
>> +int do_settimeofday(struct timespec *tv)
>>  {
>> +	if ((unsigned long)tv->tv_nsec > NSEC_PER_SEC)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
> 
> 
> Should that be ">="?

Yep, thanks for catching that.
> 
> Is there any reasonable way to avoid breaking existing
> do_settimeofday() implementations? That's just more grief all round.
> 
> 
Of course there is a way.  The question is which way leads to the most 
grief :).  The test could be made in the calling routines, but then it 
would need to be made in both posix-timer.c and time.c.  I suppose it 
would be better to do it that way as both are in common code and the 
"arch" warnning would go away.   Tomorrow...

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml