Re: [Y2038] [RESEND PATCH 2/3] fs: poll/select/recvmmsg: use timespec64 for timeout events
From: David Miller
Date: Fri May 06 2016 - 15:46:13 EST
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:01:24 -0700
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:08:11 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > But I'm less comfortable making the call on this one. It looks
>>> > relatively straight forward, but it would be good to have maintainer
>>> > acks before I add it to my tree.
>>> Agreed. Feel free to add my
>>> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>> at least (whoever picks it up).
>> In reply to [1/3] John said
>> : Looks ok at the first glance. I've queued these up for testing,
>> : however I only got #1 and #3 of the set. Are you hoping these two
>> : patches will go through tip/timers/core or are you looking for acks so
>> : they can go via another tree?
>> However none of the patches are in linux-next.
>> John had qualms about [2/3], but it looks like a straightforward
>> substitution in areas which will get plenty of testing
> Yea. My main concern is just not stepping on any other maintainers toes.
The networking changes look fine to me:
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>