Thread (6 messages) 6 messages, 4 authors, 2014-06-04

Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready

From: H. Peter Anvin <hidden>
Date: 2014-06-02 21:57:26
Also in: ceph-devel, linux-arch, linux-btrfs, linux-cifs, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs, linux-scsi, linux-xfs, lkml, ocfs2-devel

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On 06/02/2014 12:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
The bit that is really going to hurt is every single ioctl that uses a
timespec.

Honestly, though, I really don't understand the point with "struct
inode_time".  It seems like the zeroeth-order thing is to change the
kernel internal version of struct timespec to have a 64-bit time... it
isn't just about inodes.  We then should be explicit about the external
uses of time, and use accessors.
I picked these because they are fairly isolated from all other uses,
in particular since inode times are the only things where we really
care about times in the distant past or future (decades away as opposed
to things that happened between boot and shutdown).
If nothing else, I would expect to be able to set the system time to
weird values for testing.  So I'm not so sure I agree with that...
For other kernel-internal uses, we may be better off migrating to
a completely different representation, such as nanoseconds since
boot or the architecture specific ktime_t, but this is really something
to decide for each subsystem.
Having a bunch of different time representations in the kernel seems
like a real headache...

	-hpa
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help