On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:32 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 10/06/2015 10:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
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@arndb.de Cc: Oliver Hartkopp socketcan@hartkopp.net
Thanks for your good suggestion to make the BCM API y2038 proof!
Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp socketcan@hartkopp.net
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?
You can add my:
Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde mkl@pengutronix.de
add upstream the 2038 fixes as a block.
Davem already picked up the first 10 of the series. If you don't mind, I'd prefer if you could take this one into your tree so I have it off my list. I have 200 other patches in various states and more getting added.
Arnd
-
Arnd Bergmann