This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] y2038: Introduce internal for glibc struct __timespec64
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: Lukasz Majewski <lukma at denx dot de>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Alistair Francis <alistair23 at gmail dot com>, Alistair Francis <alistair dot francis at wdc dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb dot de>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Stepan Golosunov <stepan at golosunov dot pp dot ru>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:51:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] y2038: Introduce internal for glibc struct __timespec64
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <20190923232109.735f898b@jawa> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20190925094540.14be491d@jawa>
* 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
> 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).