On 10/06/2015 10:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 05 October 2015 20:51:08 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
quoted
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.
quoted
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 ...
quoted
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.
quoted
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.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |