[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170619211258.GK10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:12:58 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:52:05PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:31:00PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >
> >> 3. I was also aiming for user pointers to be not touched by timer
> >> specific code as it can get messy if not handled properly with 2
> >> compat time_t versions.
> >
> > So have one helper that deals with all copyout and have it used by
> > all of them. IMO all that code should treat userland representation
> > as completely opaque. Just switch nanosleep_copyout() to take
> > timespec64 instead of timespec (for kernel-side object) and that'll
> > do it, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes, that would work.
> If that is preferred, then I will just do that and rebase the patches.
Please, do. Note that quite a few things in that series won't be needed
anymore (e.g. compat syscalls are already moved to native ones, etc.).
Might make sense to take it to #kernel - lower latency that way...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists