Re: First draft of the Y2038 design document

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert dot aribaud at 3adev dot fr>]

Hi Florian,

Le Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:59:28 +0100, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
a Ãcrit :

> On 10/26/2015 12:12 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I have produced a fist draft of what will eventually become the Y2038
> > design document:
> > 
> > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Y2038ProofnessDesign
> > 
> > Questions, notes, comments, corrections can be appended to the document
> > and/or discussed here.
> 
> Do you really need new system calls if the existing arguments only take
> arguments specifying relative time?

Actually, the list of new and modified system calls derives from Arnd
Bergman's Y2038 kernel patch series; I believe that Arnd (cc:ing him)
has taken care not to introduce new syscalls when only a time diff is
involved.

I will make this explicit in the next iteration of the design.

> On the glibc side, does symbol versioning really buy us that much?  It
> seems that quite a few libraries (including libstdc++, I think) expose
> relevant types in their interfaces, so these interfaces would have to be
> versioned as well.  I wonder where this would end.

So far, I haven't found a need for symbol versioning in Y2038 related
changes, since the new syscalls do not need versioning (...yet) and
the old ones are one-for-one replacements of existing syscalls none of
which needs versioning (I only mentioned symbol versioning because I
saw it used in LFS introduction, which I have perused for guidance,
and I wanted to make it explicit that I'd considered it).

I will rephrase that part of the design document to better express the
above.

> Florian

Thanks for your questions and comments. Mind if I append them to the
design page (and attribute them to you)?

Cordialement,
Albert ARIBAUD
3ADEV