[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191113172203.GE5130@uranus>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:22:03 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/23] y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:02:12AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
...
>
> There are clearly too many time types at the moment, but I'm in the
> process of throwing out the ones we no longer need now.
Cool!
> I do have a number patches implementing other variants for the syscall,
> and I suppose that if we end up adding __kernel_rusage, that would
> have to go with a set of syscalls using 64-bit seconds/nanoseconds
> rather than the old 32/64 microseconds. I don't know what other
> changes remain that anyone would want from sys_waitid() now that
> it does support pidfd.
>
> If there is still a need for a new waitid() replacement, that should take
> that new __kernel_rusage I think, but until then I hope we are fine
> with today's getrusage+waitid based on the current struct rusage.
Definitely.
>
> BSD has wait6() to return separate rusage structures for 'self' and
> 'children', but I could not find any application (using the freebsd
> sources and debian code search) that actually uses that information,
> so there might not be any demand for that.
Thanks for detailed info Arnd!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists