Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v2 00/24] Delete CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC macros
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: 2016-06-22 15:49:48
Also in:
ceph-devel, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs, linux-scsi, lkml, ocfs2-devel
On Sunday, June 19, 2016 5:26:59 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
The series is aimed at getting rid of CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC macros. The macros are not y2038 safe. There is no plan to transition them into being y2038 safe. ktime_get_* api's can be used in their place. And, these are y2038 safe. Thanks to Arnd Bergmann for all the guidance and discussions. Patches 2-4 were mostly generated using coccinelle scripts. All filesystem timestamps use current_fs_time() for right granularity as mentioned in the respective commit texts of patches. This has a changed signature, renamed to current_time() and moved to the fs/inode.c. This series also serves as a preparatory series to transition vfs to 64 bit timestamps as outlined here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/12/104 . As per Linus's suggestion in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/663 , all the inode timestamp changes have been squashed into a single patch. Also, current_time() now is used as a single generic vfs filesystem timestamp api. It also takes struct inode* as argument instead of struct super_block*. Posting all patches together in a bigger series so that the big picture is clear. As per the suggestion in https://lwn.net/Articles/672598/, CURRENT_TIME macro bug fixes are being handled in a series separate from transitioning vfs to use.
I've looked in detail at all the patches in this version now, and while overall everything is fine, I found that two patches cannot be part of the series because of the dependency on the patch that John already took (adding time64_to_tm), but I think that's ok because we just need to change over all the users of CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC that assign to inode timestamps in order to prepare for the type change, the other ones can be changed later. I also found a few things that could be done differently to make the later conversion slightly easier, but it's also possible that I missed part of your bigger plan for those files, and none of them seem important. Arnd ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/