On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 22:12 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> @@ -292,8 +296,8 @@ static unsigned int alarm_setitimer(unsigned int seconds)
>* We can't return 0 if we have an alarm pending ... And we'd
>* better return too much than too little anyway
>*/
> - if
Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:43 PM Ben Hutchings
wrote:
On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 22:07 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/gettimeofday.S
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/gettimeofday.S
> @@ -15,10 +15,8 @@
> /* Offset for the low
On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 15:04 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> As Greg has already merged the original patch, and that version works
> just as well, I'd probably just leave what I did at first. One benefit is
> that in case we decide to kill off sparc64 support before drivers/char/lp.c,
> the
On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 11:02 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:49 PM Ben Hutchings
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 20:35 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:13 PM Ben Hutchings
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 21:34 +0100, Arnd Bergmann
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:49 PM Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 22:07 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> [...]
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sembuf.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sembuf.h
> > @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ struct semid64_ds {
> > unsigned long sem_ctime;
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:43 PM Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 22:07 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> [...]
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/gettimeofday.S
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/gettimeofday.S
> > @@ -15,10 +15,8 @@
> > /* Offset for the low 32-bit part of a
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:30 PM Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 22:07 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The 'struct timespec' definition can no longer be part of the uapi headers
> > because it conflicts with a a now incompatible libc definition. Also,
> > we really want to remove
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 21:34 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Going through the uses of timeval in the user space API,
> > I noticed two bugs in ppdev that were introduced in the y2038
> > conversion:
> >
> > * The range check was
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10 PM Ben Hutchings
wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 20:46 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:27 PM Ben Hutchings
> > wrote:
> > -
> > return lp_set_timeout(minor, karg[0], karg[1]);
> > }
> >
> > +static int lp_set_timeout(unsigned int
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:49 PM Ben Hutchings
wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 20:35 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:13 PM Ben Hutchings
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 21:34 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On little-endian 32-bit application running on 64-bit
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:03 AM Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>
> On compat interfaces, the high order bits of nanoseconds should
> be zeroed out. This is because the application code or the libc
> do not guarantee zeroing of these. If used without zeroing,
> kernel might be at risk of using timespec
11 matches
Mail list logo
