Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:25:41 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric.Piel@Bull.Net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Some clean up of the time code.
Message-Id: <20030610112541.3f12586d.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EE5FB06.1060207@mvista.com>
References: <3EE52CA7.9010007@mvista.com>
	<20030609182213.2072ca24.akpm@digeo.com>
	<3EE5FB06.1060207@mvista.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1269
Lines: 34

george anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > george anzinger <george@mvista.com> 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 ">="?
> > 
> > Is there any reasonable way to avoid breaking existing
> > do_settimeofday() implementations? That's just more grief all round.
> 
> Hm. Giving this more thought, the main reason for the change was to 
> move to the timespec from the timeval, i.e. nanoseconds instead of 
> microseconds.  The error check was put in because the function was 
> already being changed.  The reason to move to the timespec is to 
> complete the change made to xtime and to more correctly align with the 
> POSIX clock_settime, both of which use timespec.
> 

Well if it's really the Right Thing To Do then OK.  Was just checking.

About 30 do_settimeofday() implementations need to be repaired.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/