Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 31/31] aio: implement io_pgetevents

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:48:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Ok, fair enough. Given that the old version gets obsoleted by this > one, it shouldn't get much uglier than it already is here when you > start out with a regular timespec. We just need to be aware of possible > clashes when we get

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 31/31] aio: implement io_pgetevents

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:03:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> I'd suggest passing a variant of timespec with two 64-bit members. >> Deepa has posted patches for this structure in the past and was planning >> to do a new

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 31/31] aio: implement io_pgetevents

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:03:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I'd suggest passing a variant of timespec with two 64-bit members. > Deepa has posted patches for this structure in the past and was planning > to do a new version (with minor changes from review) soon, but we > can just well use it

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 31/31] aio: implement io_pgetevents

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:16:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Hmm, these two new syscall entry points turn into four when we add in >> support for 64-bit time_t, as we'd have to support all combinations of 32/64 >> bit

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 31/31] aio: implement io_pgetevents

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:16:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Hmm, these two new syscall entry points turn into four when we add in > support for 64-bit time_t, as we'd have to support all combinations of 32/64 > bit aio_context_t and time_t. At least they'll also replace plain old