* Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> Sure, no problem. Do you have an opinion on the question I raised in the
> first patch [1], i.e. whether we actually want this to be done this way in the
> kernel, or one of the other approaches I described there?
So this looks like the most forward looking variant:
> a) deprecate the wait4() and getrusage() system calls, and create
> a set of kernel interfaces based around a newly defined structure that
> could solve multiple problems at once, e.g. provide more fine-grained
> timestamps. The C library could then implement the posix interfaces
> on top of the new system calls.
... but given the pretty long propagation time of new ABIs, is this a good
solution? What would the limitations/trade-offs be on old-ABI systems?
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
