> I guess these two functions are small enough that they could be merged
> into one, saving a few lines. Then again, fs/aio.c seems to generally use
> fairly short functions doing not too much at once, so your approach maybe
> fits better with the style of the subsystem.
I don't see a problem
> I guess these two functions are small enough that they could be merged
> into one, saving a few lines. Then again, fs/aio.c seems to generally use
> fairly short functions doing not too much at once, so your approach maybe
> fits better with the style of the subsystem.
I don't see a problem
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> struct timespec is not y2038 safe. Use y2038 safe
> struct timespec64 to represent timeouts.
> The system call interface itself will be changed as
> part of different series.
>
> Timeouts will not really need more
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> struct timespec is not y2038 safe. Use y2038 safe
> struct timespec64 to represent timeouts.
> The system call interface itself will be changed as
> part of different series.
>
> Timeouts will not really need more than 32 bits.
> But,
struct timespec is not y2038 safe. Use y2038 safe
struct timespec64 to represent timeouts.
The system call interface itself will be changed as
part of different series.
Timeouts will not really need more than 32 bits.
But, replacing these with timespec64 helps verification
of a y2038 safe kernel
struct timespec is not y2038 safe. Use y2038 safe
struct timespec64 to represent timeouts.
The system call interface itself will be changed as
part of different series.
Timeouts will not really need more than 32 bits.
But, replacing these with timespec64 helps verification
of a y2038 safe kernel
6 matches
Mail list logo