From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262361AbTFJFaw (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:30:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262362AbTFJFav (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:30:51 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:40183 "EHLO av.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262361AbTFJFav (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:30:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3EE5700B.2020608@mvista.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:43:39 -0700 From: george anzinger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021202 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric.Piel@Bull.Net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Some clean up of the time code. References: <3EE52CA7.9010007@mvista.com> <20030609182213.2072ca24.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030609182213.2072ca24.akpm@digeo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > george anzinger wrote: > >>-void do_settimeofday(struct timeval *tv) >> +int do_settimeofday(struct timespec *tv) >> { >> + if ((unsigned long)tv->tv_nsec > NSEC_PER_SEC) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + > > > Should that be ">="? Yep, thanks for catching that. > > Is there any reasonable way to avoid breaking existing > do_settimeofday() implementations? That's just more grief all round. > > Of course there is a way. The question is which way leads to the most grief :). The test could be made in the calling routines, but then it would need to be made in both posix-timer.c and time.c. I suppose it would be better to do it that way as both are in common code and the "arch" warnning would go away. Tomorrow... -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml