public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eric Piel <Eric.Piel@Bull.Net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Some clean up of the time code.
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:36:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EE5FB06.1060207@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030609182213.2072ca24.akpm@digeo.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 ">="?
> 
> Is there any reasonable way to avoid breaking existing
> do_settimeofday() implementations? That's just more grief all round.

Hm. Giving this more thought, the main reason for the change was to 
move to the timespec from the timeval, i.e. nanoseconds instead of 
microseconds.  The error check was put in because the function was 
already being changed.  The reason to move to the timespec is to 
complete the change made to xtime and to more correctly align with the 
POSIX clock_settime, both of which use timespec.

I suspect Linus would prefer this direction...

Comments?
> 
> 

-- 
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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-06-10 15:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-06-10  0:56 [PATCH] Some clean up of the time code george anzinger
2003-06-10  1:22 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-10  5:43   ` george anzinger
2003-06-10 15:36   ` george anzinger [this message]
2003-06-10 18:25     ` Andrew Morton
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-09 22:57 george anzinger
2003-06-09 23:36 ` john stultz
2003-05-23 22:49 george anzinger

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=3EE5FB06.1060207@mvista.com \
    --to=george@mvista.com \
    --cc=Eric.Piel@Bull.Net \
    --cc=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.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