[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180712082609.GB8802@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:26:09 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
y2038@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] time: Add struct __kernel_timex
I don't think this patches makes sense without the next one,
which actually uses the structure.
> +/* CONFIG_64BIT_TIME enables new 64 bit time_t syscalls in the compat path
> + * and 32-bit emulation.
> + */
Wrong comment style, also the 'compat path is the 32 (or 31 in case of
s390) bit emulation, so the comment seems rather confusing.
> +#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT_TIME
> +#define __kernel_timex timex
> +#endif
using #defines for structs has all kinds of ill effects. Why can't
we aways use __kernel_timex for the in-kernel usage?
> +#ifndef __kernel_timex
> +struct __kernel_timex {
> + unsigned int modes; /* mode selector */
> + int :32; /* pad */
Why do we need padding for a purely in-kernel structure?
Also the anonymous member syntax is rather odd and I don't remeber
us using it anywhere else. Why here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists