From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0009C1B0F2 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8371A208B0 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="CYL411YV" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8371A208B0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932695AbeFTIkU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 04:40:20 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:35385 "EHLO mail-lf0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752121AbeFTIkR (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 04:40:17 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f68.google.com with SMTP id i15-v6so3691639lfc.2 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 01:40:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Ri2vzKKVX71DdFGp7vrqcg4G0uK5XdKZzGKaxSOdDM0=; b=CYL411YVh/LR5r0J5ev3cO3OFnyY7qDiEa362BSMxxV+nC1eoWeUqQSrJtqd70Q5mj z/CNf2Syedk7ztsOlaFG86Gb4YwISVeqE5JFDGfX9yoZg/BZtAoRBju1ZUSH1yc/ruyc z00bBRk6LheckMj0OoQe/rhNgVhLCBg8tt7FWkSPVSuXrV6BKrOB0/aum70Wyk7Gajjg nNaawSidP+P47umWKRFKYlMvyRtUh9FRLIn2IV7YU5mK9novrabk4lBYrXz7w+HuOPOy mcA2UOyMTh4R7YAgIcQU8kRGoElTIHZHOny/zdBhqaqkFoU96vyl+virDjnAZY6eeipu a9Ew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ri2vzKKVX71DdFGp7vrqcg4G0uK5XdKZzGKaxSOdDM0=; b=EG5Rhkz+XzQJNccZQYRJCsXQcOMxBYpwtlmXGmW/7KMEO0blFNYvE7AzcgqplkBF26 vIf3vj60MMR9Q3lZaE8YmZJFe1karBFiTbjT94Lx6uSsiqJa6vEVce9E/OqTcH50ozwx Hbz0MK15qxVPY1SHoL3tautrMDnZJw0WJGQoV6nc+dQL6wpb9B1x1HWviewlzY0sAquz M8LuijZ+zCnm47BWZjRRd6xuYBOpcLDaOdEUJvT2kswpK4HZOhksKxVBBEpk7rmo3+dM NUawbkSEtQXv38EvDGkYtyPPd2g24GCdPfo8tDDzDenhBtMDZtwqUN2AnpEXea3BL06q mS1A== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2LrWqrNaK9V0LkAcCe1nZjxsBrvQbZjA1n4Wb57CG/M0sQgZrc mRJrAswanjsj2Lf6w0HW0rbEVFruVTps+qJIQhhalw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKxLVP1pc1yXWJ+ZOEklLr4ONY0QS4Dl8uFNN/FcE6wPKF2veRa4gvk/P5yeD3L4CZ6Cwt+vzNTysf2b2xh/BU= X-Received: by 2002:a19:97cb:: with SMTP id z194-v6mr12992184lfd.17.1529480362486; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:39:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a2e:56c8:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:39:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180619215202.zniqq3py3hqjeudv@merlin> References: <20180619155826.4106487-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180619171407.yoncg72ed2vncf62@merlin> <20180619215202.zniqq3py3hqjeudv@merlin> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:39:21 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LO8dZKlDincZrpIGDejqtAFZn34 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: dlmglue: clean up timestamp handling To: Goldwyn Rodrigues Cc: Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , y2038 Mailman List , Eric Ren , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Deepa Dinamani , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > On 06-19 21:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: >> > On 06-19 17:58, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Here, setting a timestamp before 1970 or after 2514 will get wrapped >> around in unpatched kernels, but will be clamped to the minimum >> and maximum times after the patch. >> >> It is extremely rare for correct code to need timestamps outside of that >> range, but it is also trivial to trigger that with a manual 'touch' command >> from user space. >> >> If the change is a problem, I can resend the patch without that one >> line change. >> > > I think you should keep the change, but incrment OCFS2_LVB_VERSION. Won't that cause additional incompatibilities? I don't know how this macro gets used, but normally we don't use version numbers in kernel interfaces if that prevents us from using old user space code with newer kernels. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:39:21 +0200 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: dlmglue: clean up timestamp handling In-Reply-To: <20180619215202.zniqq3py3hqjeudv@merlin> References: <20180619155826.4106487-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180619171407.yoncg72ed2vncf62@merlin> <20180619215202.zniqq3py3hqjeudv@merlin> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Goldwyn Rodrigues Cc: Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , y2038 Mailman List , Eric Ren , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Deepa Dinamani , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > On 06-19 21:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: >> > On 06-19 17:58, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Here, setting a timestamp before 1970 or after 2514 will get wrapped >> around in unpatched kernels, but will be clamped to the minimum >> and maximum times after the patch. >> >> It is extremely rare for correct code to need timestamps outside of that >> range, but it is also trivial to trigger that with a manual 'touch' command >> from user space. >> >> If the change is a problem, I can resend the patch without that one >> line change. >> > > I think you should keep the change, but incrment OCFS2_LVB_VERSION. Won't that cause additional incompatibilities? I don't know how this macro gets used, but normally we don't use version numbers in kernel interfaces if that prevents us from using old user space code with newer kernels. Arnd