lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/12] [RFC] can: avoid using timeval for uapi
Date
On Monday 05 October 2015 20:51:08 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
> I double checked some (more) BCM applications I have access to.
>
> E.g. https://github.com/linux-can/can-tests
>
> When you do a 'git grep ival1' there you get something like
>
> tst-bcm-cycle.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec = 1;
> tst-bcm-cycle.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec = 0;
> tst-bcm-cycle.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec = 0;
> tst-bcm-cycle.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec = 0;
> tst-bcm-dump.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec = timeout / 1000000;
> tst-bcm-dump.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec = timeout % 1000000;
> (..)
>
> So the usual way to assign values to ival1 and ival2 is NOT to assign an
> existing struct timeval but to directly assign its tv_[u]sec elements.

Ok, very good.

> I applied your bcm.h changes to my local can-tests tree and it compiles
> without any problems - as expected. I don't see any serious drawback with your
> idea. I wonder whether developers would ever notice this change ...
>
> > We could address problem a) by using '__u32' or 'int' members
> > rather than 'long', but that would have a more significant
> > downside in also breaking support for all existing 64-bit user
> > binaries that might be using this interface, which is likely
> > not acceptable.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
>
> Thanks for your good suggestion to make the BCM API y2038 proof!
>
> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

Thanks.

What is the normal path for CAN patches? Should I resend with your
Ack and without the RFC for Marc to pick it up?

Arnd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-06 10:41    [W:1.013 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site