Re: [PATCH] Y2038: provide kernel support indication

[Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>]

Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> How would each 'feature' be defined? For instance, right now, either
> the Linux kernel has no Y2038-proof syscalls at all, or it has a known
> list of them (added in the kernel Y2038 syscall branch). Would that be
> one 'feature', on the grounds that later kernels will provide at least
> the same set, and possible a larget set, of Y2038 syscalls? Or as many
> features as there are syscalls, on the grounds that some of these
> syscalls may one day disappear?

The former sounds better, at least for now. It can evolve to the latter if and 
when the syscall set mutates. I see little advantage to starting with the latter 
now.


> Right now, apart from a general "architecture
> now has support for Y2038 syscalls" feature, the only feature I can see
> will happen is "syscall X has quirk Y  [for architecture Z]".

Yes, that's the sort of thing that I expect too. But unless I'm missing 
something, we don't have a strong need for a central repository that catalogs 
these quirks, as they're likely to be local to single modules[