From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751454AbbGIJDH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 9 Jul 2015 05:03:07 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:33357 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750887AbbGIJDB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 9 Jul 2015 05:03:01 -0400
Message-ID: <559E38B7.2030201@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 17:02:47 +0800
From: Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        y2038@lists.linaro.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] y2038: add 64bit time_t support in timeval
 for 32bit architecture
References: <1435587807-10008-1-git-send-email-bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org>	<1435587807-10008-2-git-send-email-bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org> <CALAqxLU0XnQfmPLOVqRtv0z_jU6kDFdK6rkfBNh11Ri-q5gPqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLU0XnQfmPLOVqRtv0z_jU6kDFdK6rkfBNh11Ri-q5gPqw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi, John

On 07/09/2015 04:09 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Bamvor Zhang Jian
> <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org> wrote:
>> +int get_timeval64(struct timeval64 *tv,
>> +                  const struct __kernel_timeval __user *utv)
>> +{
>> +       struct __kernel_timeval ktv;
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       ret = copy_from_user(&ktv, utv, sizeof(ktv));
>> +       if (ret)
>> +               return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> +       tv->tv_sec = ktv.tv_sec;
>> +       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> +          || is_compat_task()
>> +#endif
>
> These sorts of ifdefs are to be avoided inside of functions.

> Instead, it seems is_compat_task() should be defined to 0 in the
> !CONFIG_COMPAT case, so you can avoid the ifdefs and the compiler can
> still optimize it out.
I add this ifdef because I got compile failure on arm platform. This
file do not include the <linux/compat.h> directly. And in arm64,
compat.h is included implicitily.
So, I am not sure what I should do here. Include <linux/compat.h> in
this file directly or add a this check at the beginning of this file?

#ifndef is_compat_task
#define is_compat_task() (0)
#endif

> Otherwise this looks similar to a patch Baolin (cc'ed) has been working on.
Yes.

regards

bamvor
>
> thanks
> -john
>