From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>,
openipmi-developer <openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] ipmi: Update timespec usage to timespec64
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:22:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLUKxP98bc0w_15_CLhGkmFsT-3d++3U6r_+fpuKTBpfSA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2142273.XSm0MMUjAB@wuerfel>
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 January 2015 12:51:50 John Stultz wrote:
>> As part of the internal y2038 cleanup, this patch removes
>> timespec usage in the ipmi driver, replacing it timespec64
>>
>> Cc: Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>
>> Cc: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
>>
>
> In other drivers, we tended to use ktime_t and monotonic time,
> but your approach is definitely simpler because it doesn't have
> to rework the ipmi_si_is_busy logic and just do a
> s/timespec/timespec64/ conversion.
>
> Do you think it makes sense to use ktime_get_ts64 instead of
> getnstimeofday64 to get a monotonic time? The advantage would
> be to have the code work slightly better when racing against
> settimeofday, the downside would be that the debug printk
> shows the changed time base, but that would hopefully be
> irrelevant to someone debugging the code.
So here they were explicitly printing wall-time in sec/usec, so I was
somewhat hoping not to create any major behavioral changes.
But looking at this again, I see I sent a stale patch which has a
build bug (using tv_usec w/ a timespec64)... so let me redo this
anyway.
thanks
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-07 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-07 20:51 [PATCH 1/2][RFC] ipmi: Cleanup DEBUG_TIMING ifdef usage John Stultz
2015-01-07 20:51 ` [PATCH 2/2][RFC] ipmi: Update timespec usage to timespec64 John Stultz
2015-01-07 21:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-07 21:22 ` John Stultz [this message]
2015-01-07 22:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ipmi: Cleanup DEBUG_TIMING ifdef usage John Stultz
2015-01-07 22:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ipmi: Update timespec usage to timespec64 John Stultz
2015-01-09 22:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ipmi: Cleanup DEBUG_TIMING ifdef usage Corey Minyard
2015-01-09 23:57 ` John Stultz
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=CALAqxLUKxP98bc0w_15_CLhGkmFsT-3d++3U6r_+fpuKTBpfSA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minyard@acm.org \
--cc=openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).