From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Heena Sirwani <heenasirwani@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john.stultz@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] timekeeping: Added a function to return tv_sec portion of ktime_get_ts64()
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:32:09 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410251903000.5308@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12462229.Mz3a4d4AP9@wuerfel>
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 25 October 2014 17:22:23 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Hmm. Thinking more about it. That's actually overkill. For ktime_sec a
> > 32bit value is plenty enough unless we care about systems with more
> > than 136 years uptime. So if we calculate the seconds value of ktime,
> > i.e. CLOCK_MONOTONIC, in the update function, we can read it on both
> > 32 and 64bit w/o the seqcount loop.
>
> Ah, very good point. That opens the question which type that function
> should return. I really want to remove all uses of time_t from the
> kernel, mostly so we know when we're done with this. However as you
> say we know that we only need a 32-bit value here. Some possible
> ideas:
>
> - use time64_t here anyway and accept the slight inefficiency in return
> for clarity
Probably the simplest option.
> - introduce a monotonic_time_t (we probably also want a struct
> monotonic_timespec if we do that) which is basically the old time_t
> but is known to be y2038 safe because we only ever use it to store
> monotonic times.
Not sure whether its worth the trouble.
> - return u32 and use the same type in the callers instead of
> time_t/time64_t/monotonic_time_t.
Works as well. I have no immediate preference.
> > Where we really need the above readout mechanism is get_seconds() as
> > that will break in 2038 on 32bit. So there you need to change the
> > return value from unsigned long to time64_t and change the
> > implementation as above just xtime_sec instead of ktime_sec.
>
> Heena already posted a first draft of that patch to the opw internal
> mailing list, I found a small issue that needs to be resolved and
> then she can post the new version to you for review.
Great!
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-25 18:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-25 12:34 Heena Sirwani
2014-10-25 15:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-10-25 15:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-10-25 15:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-25 17:32 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2014-10-26 20:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-28 11:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-10-28 13:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-26 21:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-27 21:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.11.1410251903000.5308@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=heenasirwani@gmail.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®