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

[Lukasz Majewski <lukma at denx dot de>]

Hi Joseph, Florian,

> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> 
> > Let's wait for Joseph's opinion if we shall replace named padding
> > struct members with unnamed bitfields (and drop potential support
> > for fixing issues, which would require explicit clearing of padding
> > before passing data to the kernel).   
> 
> I'm not particularly concerned with whether this patch uses named
> padding, unnamed bit-field or 64-bit tv_nsec in the internal struct
> __timespec64. (I don't think a named bit-field would make sense
> there, however.)  If we use an unnamed bit-field now we can readily
> change it later to have a name if we decide to support clearing
> padding for compat syscalls for kernels 5.1.0 to 5.1.4.
> 

Shall I assume that the consensus is to use unnamed bit-field to pad
the tv_nsec?


Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de

Attachment: pgp2LBYXnCCKA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature