On 12 May 2015 at 16:51, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 11 May 2015 19:20:39 Baolin Wang wrote: > > diff --git a/include/linux/timekeeping.h b/include/linux/timekeeping.h > > index 89beb62..c3345d5 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/timekeeping.h > > +++ b/include/linux/timekeeping.h > > @@ -250,9 +250,9 @@ static inline void get_monotonic_boottime64(struct > timespec64 *ts) > > *ts = ktime_to_timespec64(ktime_get_boottime()); > > } > > > > -static inline void timekeeping_clocktai(struct timespec *ts) > > +static inline void timekeeping_clocktai(struct timespec64 *ts) > > { > > - *ts = ktime_to_timespec(ktime_get_clocktai()); > > + *ts = ktime_to_timespec64(ktime_get_clocktai()); > > } > > > > /* > > > > I believe Thomas has already mentioned before that the change to the > timekeeping_clocktai() function is not obvious here. I'd suggest you > split out the changes here along with the posix_get_tai() that > calls it into its own patch with a good description, and leave all > the simple changes to kernel/time/posix-timers.c in a second patch. > > I don't think it's necessary to split up the other changes from > this patch any further. If Thomas or someone else disagrees with this > and wants it more fine-grained, it would be good to say that now. > > Arnd >
Ok, i'll split out the changes of timekeeping_clocktai() function along with the posix_get_tai() into one patch. Thanks for your comments. -- Baolin.wang Best Regards _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
