On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:09:15PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 04:15:46PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > + if (cmsg->cmsg_len != CMSG_LEN(sizeof(ktime_t))) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > I don't see any existing reference to ktime_t in include/uapi. Just use a > > s64? > > Agreed. I didn't see the point of switching to ktime, either.
Do I understand it correctly that no other interface is using nanoseconds since 1970? We probably don't have to worry about year 2262 yet, but wouldn't it be better to make it consistent with the timestamping API using timespec? Or is it just better to avoid the 64/32-bit mess of time_t? -- Miroslav Lichvar
