[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53769B27.2090407@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:11:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>
CC: Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LeyFoon Tan <lftan.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] Change time_t and clock_t to 64 bit
On 05/15/2014 01:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> For practical purposes in the kernel, we may still want to use 64-bit
> nanoseconds: if we use a 96 bit struct timespec, that would be incompatible
> with the native type on 64-bit kernels, thus complicating the syscall
> emulation layer.
>
> I don't know why timespec on x32 uses 'long tv_nsec', it does seem
> problematic.
struct timespec is specified in POSIX as having type "long" for tv_nsec.
This, as Linus pointed out, is totally braindamaged.
x32 does not follow POSIX (Linus pretty much dictated that), and instead
does the __kernel_suseconds_t to match the native kernel type. The
proposal at some point was to try to push a snseconds_t into POSIX.
-hpa
--
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