On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:52:05PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:31:00PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >
> >> 3. I was also aiming for user pointers to be not touched by timer
> >> specific code as it can get messy i
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:31:00PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
>> 3. I was also aiming for user pointers to be not touched by timer
>> specific code as it can get messy if not handled properly with 2
>> compat time_t versions.
>
> So have one h
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:31:00PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> 3. I was also aiming for user pointers to be not touched by timer
> specific code as it can get messy if not handled properly with 2
> compat time_t versions.
So have one helper that deals with all copyout and have it used by
all
> Check the stuff already in tip/timers/core; at the very least it overlaps
> considerably with your series. And your variant is a lot more convoluted -
> there's no need to have a separate compat restart, etc.
Thanks, I see there were updates last week to the tree.
For the nanosleep part, I see
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:45:07PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> The series aims at isolating data conversions of time_t based structures:
> struct timespec and struct itimerspec at user space boundaries.
> This helps to later change the underlying types to handle y2038 changes
> to these.
>
> Th