From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753895AbaCEJmV (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:42:21 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f182.google.com ([209.85.215.182]:52116 "EHLO mail-ea0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751943AbaCEJmS (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:42:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:42:10 +0100 From: Richard Cochran To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Alexey Perevalov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , John Stultz , Anton Vorontsov , Kyungmin Park , cw00.choi@samsung.com, Andrew Morton , Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers Message-ID: <20140305094210.GA6328@netboy> References: <1392913425-29369-1-git-send-email-a.perevalov@samsung.com> <1392913425-29369-6-git-send-email-a.perevalov@samsung.com> <530D5715.1050901@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:11:21PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Once we agree on a solution to the Y2038 issue on 32bit with a unified > 32/64 bit syscall interface which simply gets rid of the timespec/val > nonsense and takes a simple u64 nsec value we can add the slack > property to that without any further inconvenience. Can you expand on this tangent a bit? Who needs to agree, and where is this being debated? Thanks, Richard