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 <a...@arndb.de>
> > Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socket...@hartkopp.net>
>
> Thanks for your good suggestion to make the BCM API y2038 proof!
>
> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socket...@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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
