Re: [Y2038] [RESEND PATCH 2/3] fs: poll/select/recvmmsg: use timespec64 for timeout events

2016-05-06 Thread David Miller
From: John Stultz Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:01:24 -0700 > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Morton > wrote: >> On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:08:11 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >>> > But I'm less comfortable making the call on

Re: [Y2038] [RESEND PATCH 2/3] fs: poll/select/recvmmsg: use timespec64 for timeout events

2016-05-04 Thread John Stultz
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:08:11 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > But I'm less comfortable making the call on this one. It looks >> > relatively straight forward, but it would be good to have maintainer

Re: [Y2038] [RESEND PATCH 2/3] fs: poll/select/recvmmsg: use timespec64 for timeout events

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:08:11 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > But I'm less comfortable making the call on this one. It looks > > relatively straight forward, but it would be good to have maintainer > > acks before I add it to my tree. > > Agreed. Feel free to add my > >

Re: [Y2038] [RESEND PATCH 2/3] fs: poll/select/recvmmsg: use timespec64 for timeout events

2016-05-04 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday 04 May 2016 13:04:37 John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Deepa Dinamani > wrote: > > struct timespec is not y2038 safe. > > Even though timespec might be sufficient to represent > > timeouts, use struct timespec64 here as the plan is to > >