On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Arnd Bergmann
>> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:21:27 +0200
>>
>> > When trying to build a kernel with time_t commented out, I found that
>> > the ntp subsystem still relies on timespec for its
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, David Miller wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:21:27 +0200
>
> > When trying to build a kernel with time_t commented out, I found that
> > the ntp subsystem still relies on timespec for its pps handling.
> >
> > This series addresses this and converts
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:21:27 +0200
> When trying to build a kernel with time_t commented out, I found that
> the ntp subsystem still relies on timespec for its pps handling.
>
> This series addresses this and converts all the code to use timespec64
> instead, step by step.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:21:27PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> When trying to build a kernel with time_t commented out, I found that
> the ntp subsystem still relies on timespec for its pps handling.
>
> This series addresses this and converts all the code to use timespec64
> instead, step by st
When trying to build a kernel with time_t commented out, I found that
the ntp subsystem still relies on timespec for its pps handling.
This series addresses this and converts all the code to use timespec64
instead, step by step. There is one device driver that interacts with
this code directly (ra
