On 3 June 2015 at 03:20, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Baolin Wang wrote: > > Can you try to create even longer subject lines with less information? > > > This patch introduces the timer_get64 method with itimerspec64 > > type for k_clock structure, that makes it ready for the 2038 year. > > Right. By the speed this is proceeding it will take about 2038 years > until one of these patches is going to be applied. > > > Convert to the 64bit method with itimerspec64 type for the > > timer_gettime syscall function, and change the timer_gettime syscall > > implementation. > > > > Also add a default 64bit method for the timer_get64 pointer of k_clock > > structure, and it will be removed after all the drivers are converted > > to 64bit methods. > > This is utter crap, really. The default method is a preliminary of > converting the syscall implementation. > > "Subject: posix-timers: Implement y2038 safe timer_get64() callback > > The timer_get() callback in struct k_clock is not year 2038 safe on > 32bit systems. > > To address this implement a new callback timer_get64() which uses > struct timespec64 along with a default implementation which is a > wrapper for the existing timer_get() callback. The default callback > is installed at registration time for all posix clocks which are not > yet converted to timer_get64() and will be removed once this is > completed. > > Use the new callback in __timer_gettime()." > > That's how a proper changelog should look like. > > > +static void default_timer_get64(struct k_itimer *timr, > > + struct itimerspec64 *cur_setting64) > > Please align the second argument proper: > > static void default_timer_get64(struct k_itimer *timr, > struct itimerspec64 *cur_setting64) > > Thanks, > > tglx >
Thanks for your example for the changelog, and will modify it as you suggest. -- Baolin.wang Best Regards _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
