On Saturday 21 March 2015, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 02:16:41AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > This was the first idea, but it seems a bit silly when all the drivers
> > use a 64-bit nanosecond value just like ktime_t.
>
> Not true of all drivers. In fact, the most capable devices (phyter
> and i210) have a split representation.
Ok, sorry for missing those earlier, I thought I'd looked at all
of them and not found any that did it like this.
> > but it is not any more
> > or less efficient than the previous method.
>
> Right, so no point in changing it.
>
> > Of course, but it would be rather bad style.
>
> Introducing useless code just to remove it again is also bad style.
>
> I disagree with the approach presented here. The problem at hand is
> the 2038 issue. Let's fix that first, in the easiest way, with the
> least churn, namely by using timespec64 in place of timespec. Once
> that is done, we can change over to ktime_t, if and when the need
> arises.
Ok, fair enough. I only saw this mail now after replying on the
longer series, consider my comment on ktime_t withdrawn.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
