| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1506021734000.20347@nanos> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:19:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org> cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, heenasirwani@...il.com, pang.xunlei@...aro.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, y2038@...ts.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/25] timekeeping:Introduce the current_kernel_time64() function with timespec64 type On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Baolin Wang wrote: Subject line is horrible again. "timekeeping: Introduce current_kernel_time64()" Is precise and sufficient. > This patch adds current_kernel_time64() function with timespec64 type, > and makes current_kernel_time() 'static inline' and moves it to timekeeping.h > file. Again, you describe WHAT the patch is doing first and clutter the changelog with completely irrelevant information. > It is convenient for user to get the current kernel time with timespec64 type, What's conveniant about it? > and delete the current_kernel_time() function easily in timekeeping.h file. That > is ready for 2038 when get the current time. This makes no sense at all. Again you should describe WHY current_kernel_time() must be replaced. Thanks, tglx -- 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