[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMz4kuLxBj+82trNVXs9qkuecrKvgdbXuJ3dfvDOCfyJwrDX9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:42:26 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux390@...ibm.com, rth@...ddle.net,
riel@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, tj@...nel.org,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cputime: Introduce cputime_to_timespec64()/timespec64_to_cputime()
On 15 July 2015 at 18:31, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>> The cputime_to_timespec() and timespec_to_cputime() functions are
>> not year 2038 safe on 32bit systems due to that the struct timepsec
>> will overflow in 2038 year.
>
> And how is this relevant? cputime is not based on wall clock time at
> all. So what has 2038 to do with cputime?
>
> We want proper explanations WHY we need such a change.
When converting the posix-cpu-timers, it call the
cputime_to_timespec() function. Thus it need a conversion for this
function.
You can see that conversion in patch "posix-cpu-timers: Convert to
y2038 safe callbacks" from
https://git.linaro.org/people/baolin.wang/upstream_0627.git.
And I also will explain this in the changelog. Thanks for your comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
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