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: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 913951F8C8 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5441A385800C for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:55:02 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5441A385800C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1631818502; bh=hkgiQD2uTPPI0yn4q0R3suN/3C0WEfR93LIO5Kj/ozo=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=yAxk8AZrmsy1GCpn/y8dLrC+hiFP8Gul3ofClY203L1gdiSfpyK/q7f1M4LlzVdKU P6hjRvKz+iPX5tqcF8SVBFxNpMR1YNnM3RuOVyAJFB+GU3LNb5f0JNJdKPAFbEOcML 0rRErvROEUYDey1WhUAlBWoH/Ch9/RYaBmmwJIWE= Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk (bhuna.collabora.co.uk [46.235.227.227]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45D653858D3C for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:54:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 45D653858D3C Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: tonyk) with ESMTPSA id E6F371F44239 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 15:54:32 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] futex: Implement sys_futex_waitv() Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra References: <20210915140710.596174479@infradead.org> <20210915141525.621568509@infradead.org> <87tuika83y.ffs@tglx> In-Reply-To: <87tuika83y.ffs@tglx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: =?utf-8?q?Andr=C3=A9_Almeida_via_Libc-alpha?= Reply-To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Almeida?= Cc: dave@stgolabs.net, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, dvhart@infradead.org, kernel@collabora.com, krisman@collabora.com Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" Às 11:49 de 16/09/21, Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 10:34, Paul Eggert wrote: > >> On 9/15/21 8:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> I utterly detest timespec.. it makes no sense what so ever. >>> >>> Can't we just, for new syscalls, simply use a s64 nsec argument and call >>> it a day? >> >> This would stop working in the year 2262. Not a good idea. > > Make it u64 and it stops in 2552, i.e. 584 years from now which is > plenty. Lot's of the kernel internal timekeeping will stop working at > that point, so that interface is the least of my worries. And TBH, my > worries about the Y2552 problem are extremly close to zero. > What do we win by using u64 instead of timespec? Or what's so bad about timespec?