On Sun, Nov 02, 2025 at 10:41:39AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On 2025-11-02 09:36:22+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 03:46:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025, at 17:02, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +struct timespec {
> > > > + time_t tv_sec;
> > > > + long tv_nsec;
> > > > +};
> > > > +#define _STRUCT_TIMESPEC
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/time.h>
> > >
> > > Unfortunately this is not the definition we want on big-endian
> > > systems because it puts the tv_nsec field in the wrong place.
> >
> > Indeed!
> >
> > > You can either uses the simple (non-POSIX) __kernel_timespec
> > > definition in nolibc with a 64-bit tv_nsec, or copy the more
> > > complicated definition with explicit padding that is used
> > > in musl and glibc.
> >
> > I think that switching this patch and the next one (10/12) would
> > just do the trick since both fields will become __kernel_time64_t.
> > Or maybe the two should be squashed into a single one.
>
> Maybe I can make it clearer that this patch does not change anything.
> This custom definition of 'struct timespec' is the same as the one we
> got from linux/time.h before. This is just a preparation for the next
> commit. Merging would also work, but it will be a bit messy to look at.
Yes a slightly improved description in the patch wouldn't hurt. Since
we were two to get caught, it will definitely happen in the future when
people read commits.
Thanks!
Willy
