[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF=yD-KfxXK=Ta=+a8UYMcmUYzN=UokotfzSno2-xi=JeS6=0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 22:58:39 -0500
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, jejb@...isc-linux.org,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, rth@...ddle.net,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] sockopt: Rename SO_TIMESTAMP* to SO_TIMESTAMP*_OLD
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 3:58 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> SO_TIMESTAMP, SO_TIMESTAMPNS and SO_TIMESTAMPING options, the
> way they are currently defined, are not y2038 safe.
> Subsequent patches in the series add new y2038 safe versions
> of these options which provide 64 bit timestamps on all
> architectures uniformly.
> Hence, rename existing options with OLD tag suffixes.
Why do the existing interfaces have to be renamed when new interfaces are added?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists