[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1872149.XE0by8RQTx@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:27:56 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: y2038@...ts.linaro.org
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 7/7] [RFC] [media] introduce v4l2_timespec type for timestamps
On Tuesday 15 September 2015 18:32:36 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >
> > - ktime_get_ts(×tamp);
> > + ktime_get_ts64(×tamp);
> > + vts.tv_sec = timestamp.tv_sec;
> > + vts.tv_nsec = timestamp.tv_nsec;
>
> I prefer to take this opportunity to create a v4l2_get_timespec helper
> function, just like v4l2_get_timeval.
Ok, good idea. I'll do that once we have agreed on the ABI.
> > @@ -2088,7 +2094,7 @@ struct v4l2_event {
> > } u;
> > __u32 pending;
> > __u32 sequence;
> > - struct timespec timestamp;
> > + struct v4l2_timespec timestamp;
> > __u32 id;
> > __u32 reserved[8];
> > };
> >
>
> I think I am OK with this. This timestamp is used much more rarely and I do
> not expect this ABI change to cause any problems in userspace.
I'd still wait the outcome of the v4l2_timeval discussion though. It may
be useful for consistency to pick the same approach for both structures.
Arnd
--
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