[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E5E71A8.8090209@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:38:48 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers
On 08/31/2011 10:19 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I think tv_nsec was just overlooked, and people thought "it has no
> legacy users that were 'int', so we'll just leave it at 'long', which
> is guaranteed to be enough for nanoseconds that only needs a range of
> 32 bits".
>
> In contrast, tv_usec probably *does* have legacy users that are "int".
>
> So POSIX almost certainly only looked backwards, and never thought
> about users who would need to make it "long long" for compatibility
> reasons.
>
> The fact that *every*other*related*field* in POSIX/SuS has a typedef
> exactly for these kinds of reasons just shows how stupid that "long
> tv_nsec" thing is.
>
> I suspect that on Linux we can just say "tv_nsec" is suseconds_t too.
> Then we can make time_t and suseconds_t just match, and be "__s64" on
> all new platforms.
>
Let me see if I can raise this with the POSIX committee.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists