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@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for your good suggestion to make the BCM API y2038 proof! > > Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
