This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] y2038: Introduce internal for glibc struct __timespec64

* 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).

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]