[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140305094210.GA6328@netboy>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:42:10 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Alexey Perevalov <a.perevalov@...sung.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
cw00.choi@...sung.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:11:21PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Once we agree on a solution to the Y2038 issue on 32bit with a unified
> 32/64 bit syscall interface which simply gets rid of the timespec/val
> nonsense and takes a simple u64 nsec value we can add the slack
> property to that without any further inconvenience.
Can you expand on this tangent a bit?
Who needs to agree, and where is this being debated?
Thanks,
Richard
--
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