On 12 May 2015 at 17:39, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Monday 11 May 2015 19:08:38 Baolin Wang wrote: > > This patch series changes the 32-bit time type (timespec/itimerspec) to > the 64-bit one > > (timespec64/itimerspec64), since 32-bit time types will break in the > year 2038. > > > > This patch series introduces new methods with timespec64/itimerspec64 > type, > > and removes the old ones with timespec/itimerspec type for > posix_clock_operations > > and k_clock structure. > > > > Also introduces some new functions with timespec64/itimerspec64 type, > like current_kernel_time64(), > > hrtimer_get_res64(), cputime_to_timespec64() and timespec64_to_cputime(). > > > > Changes since v2: > > -Split the syscall conversion patch into small some patches. > > > > > > Baolin Wang (22): > > linux/time64.h:Introduce the 'struct itimerspec64' for 64bit > > timekeeping:Introduce the current_kernel_time64() function with > > timespec64 type > > time/hrtimer:Introduce hrtimer_get_res64() with timespec64 type for > > getting the timer resolution > > posix-timers:Split out the guts of the syscall and change the > > implementation for timer_gettime > > posix-timers:Convert to the 64bit methods for the timer_gettime > > syscall function > > I have two more very general comments about the series: > > a) something has gone wrong with your submission in v2 and v3 but was > working earlier: normally all emails should be sent by git-send-email > as replies to the [patch 00/22] mail. This is the default, and it > is enabled by the '--thread --no-chain-reply' options. Please try > to get this to work again. > > b) it would be better to have a little shorter subject lines, to avoid > line-wrapping in the list above. Here are some examples what you could > use to replace the lines above: > > timekeeping: introduce struct itimerspec64 > timekeeping: introduce current_kernel_time64() > hrtimer: introduce hrtimer_get_res64() > posix-timers: split up sys_timer_gettime() > posix-timers: convert timer_gettime() to timespec64 > > In general, try to come up with the shortest description that > uniquely describes what your patch does, and move any details into > the longer patch description. > > Arnd >
OK, i'll fix these in next patch series.Thanks for your comments. -- Baolin.wang Best Regards
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
