On Wednesday 16 September 2015 08:51:14 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > a) Similar to my first attempt, define a new struct v4l2_timeval, but
> > only use it when building with a y2038-aware libc, so we don't break
> > existing environments:
> >
> > /* some compile-time conditional that we first need to agree on with libc */
> > #if __BITS_PER_TIME_T > __BITS_PER_LONG
> > struct v4l2_timeval { long tv_sec; long tv_usec; }
> > #else
> > #define v4l2_timeval timeval
> > #endif
> >
> > This means that any user space that currently assumes the timestamp
> > member to be a 'struct timeval' has to be changed to access the members
> > individually, or get a build error.
> > The __BITS_PER_TIME_T trick has to be used in a couple of other subsystems
> > too, as some of them have no other way to identify an interface
>
> I don't like this as this means some applications will compile on 64 bit or
> with a non-y2038-aware libc, but fail on a 32-bit with y2038-aware libc. This
> will be confusing and it may take a long time before the application developer
> discovers this.
Right.
> > b) Keep the header file unchanged, but deal with both formats of v4l2_buffer
> > in the kernel. Fortunately, all ioctls that pass a v4l2_buffer have
> > properly defined command codes, and it does not get passed using a
> > read/write style interface. This means we move the v4l2_buffer32
> > handling from v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c to v4l2-ioctl.c and add an in-kernel
> > v4l2_buffer64 that matches the 64-bit variant of v4l2_buffer.
> > This way, user space can use either definition of time_t, and the
> > kernel will just handle them natively.
> > This is going to be the most common way to handle y2038 compatibility
> > in device drivers, and it has the additional advantage of simplifying
> > the compat path.
>
> This would work.
Ok. So the only downside I can think of for this is that it uses a slightly
less efficient format with additional padding in it. The kernel side will
be a little ugly as I'm trying to avoid defining a generic timeval64
structure (the generic syscalls should not need one), but I'll try to
implement it first to see how it ends up.
> > c) As you describe above, introduce a new v4l2_buffer replacement with
> > a different layout that does not reference timeval. For this case, I
> > would recommend using a single 64-bit nanosecond timestamp that can
> > be generated using ktime_get_ns().
> > However, to avoid ambiguity with the user space definition of struct
> > timeval, we still have to hide the existing 'struct v4l2_buffer' from
> > y2038-aware user space by enclosing it in '#if __BITS_PER_TIME_T >
> > __BITS_PER_LONG' or similar.
>
> Right, and if we do that we still have the problem I describe under a). So we
> would need to implement b) regardless.
>
> In other words, choosing c) doesn't depend on y2038 and it should be decided
> on its own merits.
>
> I've proposed this as a topic to the media workshop we'll have during the Linux
> Kernel Summit.
Thanks, good idea. I'll be at the kernel summit, but don't plan to attend
the media workshop otherwise. If you let me know about the schedule, I can
come to this session (or ping me on IRC or hangout when it starts).
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
