Searched hist:bdd565f8 (Results 1 – 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/include/uapi/linux/ |
| H A D | resource.h | bdd565f8 Fri Oct 25 15:46:48 CDT 2019 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
the system call interface.
While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
if anyone thinks we should do that.
Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
bdd565f8 Fri Oct 25 15:46:48 CDT 2019 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
the system call interface.
While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
if anyone thinks we should do that.
Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
|
| /openbmc/linux/arch/alpha/kernel/ |
| H A D | osf_sys.c | bdd565f8 Fri Oct 25 15:46:48 CDT 2019 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
the system call interface.
While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
if anyone thinks we should do that.
Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
bdd565f8 Fri Oct 25 15:46:48 CDT 2019 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
the system call interface.
While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
if anyone thinks we should do that.
Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
|
| /openbmc/linux/kernel/ |
| H A D | sys.c | bdd565f8 Fri Oct 25 15:46:48 CDT 2019 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
the system call interface.
While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
if anyone thinks we should do that.
Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
bdd565f8 Fri Oct 25 15:46:48 CDT 2019 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
the system call interface.
While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
if anyone thinks we should do that.
Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
|