On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 09:01 -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Ben Hutchings > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 14:42 -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > > From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> > > > > > > There are a total of 53 system calls (aside from ioctl) that pass a time_t > > > or derived data structure as an argument, and in order to extend time_t > > > to 64-bit, we have to replace them with new system calls and keep > > > providing > > > backwards compatibility. > > > > > > To avoid adding completely new and untested code for this purpose, we > > > introduce a new CONFIG_64BIT_TIME symbol. Every architecture that supports > > > new 64 bit time_t syscalls enables this config via ARCH_HAS_64BIT_TIME. > > > > > > After this is done for all architectures, the CONFIG_64BIT_TIME symbol > > > can be made a user-selected option, to enable users to build a kernel > > > that only provides y2038-safe system calls by making 32 time_t syscalls > > > conditionally included based on the above config. > > > > I don't understand why we would want to change the semantics of > > CONFIG_64BIT_TIME symbol from "enable 64-bit time support" to "disable > > 32-bit time support". > > > > Why not add two config symbols: > > > > config 32BIT_TIME > > def_bool COMPAT || !64BIT > > > > config 64BIT_TIME > > def_bool ARCH_HAS_64BIT_TIME > > > > and then make 32BIT_TIME user-configurable later? > > This was already discussed on the review and we have an updated version: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/27/938
Sorry, I'll move on to reviewing that. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.
