[PATCH 6/6] cputime: Introduce cputime_to_timespec64()/timespec64_to_cputime()
baolin.wang at linaro.org
Fri Jul 17 18:39:32 AEST 2015
On 16 July 2015 at 18:43, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> On 15 July 2015 at 19:55, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> >> On 15 July 2015 at 18:31, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> The cputime_to_timespec() and timespec_to_cputime() functions are
>> >> >> not year 2038 safe on 32bit systems due to that the struct timepsec
>> >> >> will overflow in 2038 year.
>> >> >
>> >> > And how is this relevant? cputime is not based on wall clock time at
>> >> > all. So what has 2038 to do with cputime?
>> >> >
>> >> > We want proper explanations WHY we need such a change.
>> >> When converting the posix-cpu-timers, it call the
>> >> cputime_to_timespec() function. Thus it need a conversion for this
>> >> function.
>> > There is no requirement to convert posix-cpu-timers on their own. We
>> > need to adopt the posix cpu timers code because it shares syscalls
>> > with the other posix timers, but that still does not explain why we
>> > need these functions.
>> In posix-cpu-timers, it also defined some 'k_clock struct' variables,
>> and we need to convert the callbacks of the 'k_clock struct' which are
>> not year 2038 safe on 32bit systems. Some callbacks which need to
>> convert call the cputime_to_timespec() function, thus we also want to
>> convert the cputime_to_timespec() function to a year 2038 safe
>> function to make all them ready for the year 2038 issue.
> You are not getting it at all.
> 1) We need to change k_clock callbacks due to 2038 issues
> 2) posix cpu timers implement affected callbacks
> 3) posix cpu timers themself and cputime are NOT affected by 2038
> So we have 2 options to change the code in posix cpu timers:
> A) Do the timespec/timespec64 conversion in the posix cpu timer
> callbacks and leave the cputime functions untouched.
> B) Implement cputime/timespec64 functions to avoid #A
> If you go for #B, you need to provide a reasonable explanation why
> it is better than #A. And that explanation has absolutely nothing
> to do with 2038 safety.
Very thanks for your explanation, and I'll think about that.
> Not everything is a 2038 issue, just because the only tool you have is
> a timespec64.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev