From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAFB31F463 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:51:23 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=EhaIK OKhEAFhMivhHLsAh4vxbz9w7YTOw7F+ZRmVPCLn9sFvnglkZlF7nJdUUDSU/htjW ceOIPbtrz2RVvL0/k6j3aGQHJo/zeY4gLPA+FqpMZjlen87LVc5nk3ikZnmFhRvf XdWvXFvX3STF+QfEo1JIDogfxTHl+IgABVr0Yw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=default; bh=VexhEaux3bx 13rZf5Yi4U9mchc8=; b=uZ9fagZakVkNS6qY966Nrmy3u6CLWM/i3UtDWneXdlj 7Ywa/dDjy2MtQcyzSVXHeSTp+EYbHLLwRtNVag9nU1B9pxoHdjyNM0ODpqadtsEw XltulbysP2Y3nt5vHLg3ViRbfKsg3OevSFD3xTJ0kfGNsvGgv3jRIhmH4Ld0xbDU = Received: (qmail 118198 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2019 12:51:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 118190 invoked by uid 89); 25 Sep 2019 12:51:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mailout.enyo.de From: Florian Weimer To: Lukasz Majewski Cc: Joseph Myers , Alistair Francis , Alistair Francis , Zack Weinberg , Arnd Bergmann , GNU C Library , Adhemerval Zanella , Florian Weimer , Carlos O'Donell , Stepan Golosunov Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] y2038: Introduce internal for glibc struct __timespec64 References: <20190918211603.8444-1-lukma@denx.de> <20190918211603.8444-2-lukma@denx.de> <20190923232109.735f898b@jawa> <20190925094540.14be491d@jawa> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:51:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190925094540.14be491d@jawa> (Lukasz Majewski's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2019 09:45:40 +0200") Message-ID: <877e5wtu7y.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain * Lukasz Majewski: >> I think it's generally for reviewers to say if their view is "I think >> this patch is OK but we should allow more time for other people to >> comment", rather than expecting patch contributors to judge when they >> need to wait further after a patch approval. > > Yes. I do understand. > > If I may ask - what is the "acceptable" time for other people from > community to jump in and comment the patch before it shall be > applied? > > Is it one week or more/less ? A week is more than enough, especially for patches that only touch internals like this one. Regarding the actual patch, I don't understand why tv_pad isn't an *anonymous* bit field. This seems to introduce unnecessary variance between architectures and is incompatible with how glibc itself uses struct timespec. It's also inconsistent with the new comment in include/time.h (named padding is only needed if you need to zero-initialize the padding).