From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755771Ab1H3Qgi (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:36:38 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:50711 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753955Ab1H3Qgh (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:36:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4E5D1153.5030908@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:35:31 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , LKML , "H.J. Lu" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers References: <4E582577.2060805@zytor.com> <201108291704.08279.arnd@arndb.de> <4E5BDAF6.40000@zytor.com> <201108301409.27527.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201108301409.27527.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/30/2011 05:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I'm wondering about the time_t changes: given that we are still adding > new 32 bit architectures, should we change the asm-generic API as well > to use 64 bit time_t by default (with fallbacks for the existing ones)? > > If you are adding support for these in x32 already, we could use the > same code for regular 32 bit architectures. > It seems absolutely boggling insane that we're introducing new architectures with no legacy whatsoever and use 32-bit time_t on those. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.