On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:49:04PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:48:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Ok, fair enough. Given that the old version gets obsoleted by this
> > one, it shouldn't get much uglier than it already is here when you
> > start out with a regu
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:48:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Ok, fair enough. Given that the old version gets obsoleted by this
> one, it shouldn't get much uglier than it already is here when you
> start out with a regular timespec. We just need to be aware of possible
> clashes when we get th
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:03:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> I'd suggest passing a variant of timespec with two 64-bit members.
>> Deepa has posted patches for this structure in the past and was planning
>> to do a new version (with
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:03:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I'd suggest passing a variant of timespec with two 64-bit members.
> Deepa has posted patches for this structure in the past and was planning
> to do a new version (with minor changes from review) soon, but we
> can just well use it i
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:16:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> Hmm, these two new syscall entry points turn into four when we add in
>> support for 64-bit time_t, as we'd have to support all combinations of 32/64
>> bit aio_context_t a
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:16:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hmm, these two new syscall entry points turn into four when we add in
> support for 64-bit time_t, as we'd have to support all combinations of 32/64
> bit aio_context_t and time_t.
At least they'll also replace plain old io_getevents
