On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.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. >> Do you guys see any benefit in doing it the way patch 4/8 in the >> current series does? > > Well, if you want to keep more restart functions and more boilerplate > on compat side... Yes, there is no good way of achieving everything because of backward compatibility. Thanks, Deepa
