Thread (28 messages) 28 messages, 4 authors, 2016-10-31

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] input: Deprecate real timestamps beyond year 2106

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: 2016-10-28 12:20:09
Also in: lkml

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:12:54 PM CEST Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:25:43PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
quoted
quoted
If users are forced to update to adapt to the new event format, should
we consider more radical changes? For example, does it make sense to
send timestamp on every event? Maybe we should only send it once per
event packet (between EV_SYN/SYN_REPORT)? What granularity do we need?
Is there anything else in current protocol that we'd like to change?
I did see the thread with Pingbo's patches where you had a similar comment.

I see my series as decoupling the kernel input event format from the
userspace format.
The formats also are really the same still.
Could this be considered the first step towards changing the protocol?
I really do not see the point. I think we agree that the current
protocol is not working past 2038 and it does not seem we can fix it
transparently for the user. So we need to define new protocol and let
kernel and clients negotiate which one is used.
This work is not primarily about fixing the protocol to work beyond
2038 (although as a side-effect it will work until 2106). The
main intention here is to not break existing applications when
they get recompiled against a C library that defines time_t as
64-bit.
I am not concerned about in-kernel representation much as it does not
get stored anywhere so we can adjust it as needed without too much
effort.
quoted
The protocol changes might need new interfaces to be defined between libraries.
And, could end up being a substantial change.
Would a step by step approach make sense?
It would depend largely on the scope.
I think we should do those two things completely independently.
We need to do something now to preserve the current interfaces
for the glibc changes that are coming soon [1], and Deepa's
patches do that (though I now realize the changelog doesn't
mention the requirement).

An overhaul of the input_event handling with a new modern
but incompatible format may or may not be a good idea, but
this should be decided independently.

	Arnd

[1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Y2038ProofnessDesign
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help