On Tuesday 15 September 2015 18:32:36 Hans Verkuil wrote:

quoted

 
-     ktime_get_ts(&timestamp);
+     ktime_get_ts64(&timestamp);
+     vts.tv_sec = timestamp.tv_sec;
+     vts.tv_nsec = timestamp.tv_nsec;

I prefer to take this opportunity to create a v4l2_get_timespec helper
function, just like v4l2_get_timeval.

Ok, good idea. I'll do that once we have agreed on the ABI.

quoted

@@ -2088,7 +2094,7 @@ struct v4l2_event {
      } u;
      __u32                           pending;
      __u32                           sequence;
-     struct timespec                 timestamp;
+     struct v4l2_timespec            timestamp;
      __u32                           id;
      __u32                           reserved[8];
 };

I think I am OK with this. This timestamp is used much more rarely and I do
not expect this ABI change to cause any problems in userspace.

I'd still wait the outcome of the v4l2_timeval discussion though. It may
be useful for consistency to pick the same approach for both structures.

	Arnd
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038