On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 09:19:05PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > btw, where did you post the libevdev patch? I haven't seen it anywhere I'm
> > subscribed to.
>
> The libevdev patch was posted to input-to...@lists.freedesktop.org :
> https://www.mail-archive.com/y2038@lists.linaro.org/msg01824.
> I think we should do those two things completely independently.
> We need to do something now to preserve the current interfaces
> for the glibc changes that are coming soon [1], and Deepa's
> patches do that (though I now realize the changelog doesn't
> mention the requirement).
I'll update the
> btw, where did you post the libevdev patch? I haven't seen it anywhere I'm
> subscribed to.
The libevdev patch was posted to input-to...@lists.freedesktop.org :
https://www.mail-archive.com/y2038@lists.linaro.org/msg01824.html
-Deepa
On Friday, October 28, 2016 2:56:10 PM CEST Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 2:39:35 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >> >> >> @@ -55,24 +60,24 @@ struct ff_effect_compat {
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> static inline size_t inpu
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 2:39:35 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> >> >> @@ -55,24 +60,24 @@ struct ff_effect_compat {
>> >> >>
>> >> >> static inline size_t input_event_size(void)
>> >> >> {
>> >> >> - return (in_compat_syscall() &
On Friday, October 28, 2016 2:39:35 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >> >> @@ -55,24 +60,24 @@ struct ff_effect_compat {
> >> >>
> >> >> static inline size_t input_event_size(void)
> >> >> {
> >> >> - return (in_compat_syscall() && !COMPAT_USE_64BIT_TIME) ?
> >> >> - sizeof(str
>> >> @@ -55,24 +60,24 @@ struct ff_effect_compat {
>> >>
>> >> static inline size_t input_event_size(void)
>> >> {
>> >> - return (in_compat_syscall() && !COMPAT_USE_64BIT_TIME) ?
>> >> - sizeof(struct input_event_compat) : sizeof(struct
>> >> input_event);
>> >> + ret
On Friday, October 28, 2016 8:19:46 AM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:27:32 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >> @@ -55,24 +60,24 @@ struct ff_effect_compat {
> >>
> >> static inline size_t input_event_size(void)
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:27:32 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> @@ -55,24 +60,24 @@ struct ff_effect_compat {
>>
>> static inline size_t input_event_size(void)
>> {
>> - return (in_compat_syscall() && !COMPAT_USE_64BIT_TIME) ?
>>
On Friday, October 28, 2016 2:46:42 PM CEST Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:24:55PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Peter Hutterer
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:27:32PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > > general comment here - plea
On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:27:32 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> @@ -55,24 +60,24 @@ struct ff_effect_compat {
>
> static inline size_t input_event_size(void)
> {
> - return (in_compat_syscall() && !COMPAT_USE_64BIT_TIME) ?
> - sizeof(struct input_event_compat) : sizeof(s
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:12:54 PM CEST Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:25:43PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > > If users are forced to update to adapt to the new event format, should
> > > we consider more radical changes? For example, does it make sense to
> > > send t
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:24:55PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Peter Hutterer
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:27:32PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >> struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
> >> All usage of timeval in the kernel will be replaced by
> >> y20
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:25:43PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >> struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
> >> All usage of timeval in the kernel will be replaced by
> >> y2038 safe structures.
> >>
> >> struct input_event maintains time for each input event.
> >> Real time timestamps are not ideal fo
>> struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
>> All usage of timeval in the kernel will be replaced by
>> y2038 safe structures.
>>
>> struct input_event maintains time for each input event.
>> Real time timestamps are not ideal for input as this
>> time can go backwards as noted in the patch a80b83b7b8
>>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Peter Hutterer
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:27:32PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
>> All usage of timeval in the kernel will be replaced by
>> y2038 safe structures.
>>
>> struct input_event maintains time for each input e
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:27:32PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
> All usage of timeval in the kernel will be replaced by
> y2038 safe structures.
>
> struct input_event maintains time for each input event.
> Real time timestamps are not ideal for input as this
>
Hi Deepa,
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:27:32PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
> All usage of timeval in the kernel will be replaced by
> y2038 safe structures.
>
> struct input_event maintains time for each input event.
> Real time timestamps are not ideal for inpu
struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
All usage of timeval in the kernel will be replaced by
y2038 safe structures.
struct input_event maintains time for each input event.
Real time timestamps are not ideal for input as this
time can go backwards as noted in the patch a80b83b7b8
by John Stultz. Hence,
19 matches
Mail list logo
