On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:38 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/1/19 8:09 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 9/30/19 2:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> All system calls use struct __kernel_timespec instead of the old struct
> >> timespec, but this one was just added with the old-style ABI. Change it
> >> now to enforce the use of __kernel_timespec, avoiding ABI confusion and
> >> the need for compat handlers on 32-bit architectures.
> >>
> >> Any user space caller will have to use __kernel_timespec now, but this
> >> is unambiguous and works for any C library regardless of the time_t
> >> definition. A nicer way to specify the timeout would have been a less
> >> ambiguous 64-bit nanosecond value, but I suppose it's too late now to
> >> change that as this would impact both 32-bit and 64-bit users.
> >
> > Thanks for catching that, Arnd. Applied.
>
> On second thought - since there appears to be no good 64-bit timespec
> available to userspace, the alternative here is including on in liburing.
What's wrong with using __kernel_timespec? Just the name?
I suppose liburing could add a macro to give it a different name
for its users.
> That seems kinda crappy in terms of API, so why not just use a 64-bit nsec
> value as you suggest? There's on released kernel with this feature yet, so
> there's nothing stopping us from just changing the API to be based on
> a single 64-bit nanosecond timeout.
Certainly fine with me.
> + timeout = READ_ONCE(sqe->addr);
> hrtimer_init(&req->timeout.timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> req->timeout.timer.function = io_timeout_fn;
> - hrtimer_start(&req->timeout.timer, timespec_to_ktime(ts),
> + hrtimer_start(&req->timeout.timer, ns_to_ktime(timeout),
It seems a little odd to use the 'addr' field as something that's not
an address,
and I'm not sure I understand the logic behind when you use a READ_ONCE()
as opposed to simply accessing the sqe the way it is done a few lines
earlier.
The time handling definitely looks good to me.
Arnd
