On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:46 PM Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > > socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same > > sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which > > results in a lot of duplicate code. > > > > With the introduction of 64-bit time_t on 32-bit architectures, this > > gets worse, as we then need four different ioctl commands in each > > socket protocol implementation. > > > > To simplify that, let's add a new .gettstamp() operation in > > struct proto_ops, and move ioctl implementation into the common > > sock_ioctl()/compat_sock_ioctl_trans() functions that these all go > > through. > > > > We can reuse the sock_get_timestamp() implementation, but generalize > > it so it can deal with both native and compat mode, as well as > > timeval and timespec structures. > > > > Acked-by: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a038aDQQotzua_QtKGhq8O9n+rdiz2=WDCp82ys8eUT+A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v2: reworked to not break sparc64 support > > From the discussion of v1 I thought you planned to unconditionally > call sock_gettstamp() for all protocols, avoiding the need to plumb in > all these new callbacks? > > That is more concise, though this closer to the existing behavior. So, > fine either way. Thanks for the reminder. I have definitely waited too long before revisiting this series, and only had a vague recollection of that discussion but could not find it in the logs (found it now, and the Link I quoted...). I would prefer to get this series into the coming merge window, and probably don't have time to rework it completely by then, so I hope the current version is ok. I also found your comment on lock_sock(), which could be easily added inside of sock_gettstamp() if you think we should have that. There is one more issue I just noticed (I dropped the necessary sock_read_timestamp()), so I have to repost the series anyway to fix that. Arnd
