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=-4.0 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 DC53E1F461 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:11:00 +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=H4Kou c7dIP5gnPeLalgNyAms7fBaFQiHmBGhmsq9/eCho1wWi99QTfYifdCTFVeTaM2Jr gkYatfKckMnU9cEyo6NxUgsWcDLqO3NSTh9Dvq+V/W1cv3HhPn6VmKD+3CjovqM4 z3gJ+airRSSPsS8FUrm0Moz3EahQuvtyoXAnMM= 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=LTmdkkadbGY eiQVeM0tfa3hUs9U=; b=iDZuBABkTuJk3uR8xqoo8Kx/CtVLucp1rHtAorUyZXI 1HJVOhYtDZ5sNG823CFqM0z6gpCTEDPf21i/NCi8FRRuOc/ZT03vtk34LCtSUPPH tIcLn6ZVdHavhidcPM1z0FrDJKNbx7NUX+CN1lnYQl2Xp00gRHqppNBSp6y59IyU = Received: (qmail 12174 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2019 12:10:58 -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 12160 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jun 2019 12:10:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com From: Florian Weimer To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Zack Weinberg , Alistair Francis , GNU C Library Subject: Re: [RFC v2 08/20] sysdeps/wait: Use waitid if avaliable References: <2df9d3878359585ac1cc46243fb6664f7a50b3b3.1561421042.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <87ftnx6i0m.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:10:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:00:44 +0200") Message-ID: <877e9950hj.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain * Arnd Bergmann: > The kernel system call waitid() is a superset of glibc's wait4() and > waitid(), it has an extra rusage argument. > > Originally, my plan was to replace kernel's waitid() with > a waitid_time64() that takes an updated rusage structure, > but that never happened. > > I still left wait4() commented out since it should not be > needed when the kernel has waitid(). I have an implementation > of wait4() based on waitid() that I did for musl and tested > successfully with ltp, see [1]. > Unless I did something very wrong there, you should be able > to use something like this in glibc. > > Similar coversions of timeval have to be done in getrusage(), > getitimer() and setitimer(), all of which expect a 32-bit > timeval couting elapsed time (so no overflow in y2038). > These need to be converted to the 64-bit timeval in the > public glibc interface. Does this means that RV32 will use a 32-bit struct timeval in those system calls? Even if everything else 64-bit? Thanks, Florian