From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756551AbaEaOYX (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2014 10:24:23 -0400 Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([69.89.23.142]:55372 "HELO gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756394AbaEaOYV (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2014 10:24:21 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=CpMsLBID c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=yEjhGPV9XlbPNRGz7jjbow==:117 a=yEjhGPV9XlbPNRGz7jjbow==:17 a=DsvgjBjRAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=ejg-4CzlklgA:10 a=neHJxMmKCwgA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wCmvBT1CAAAA:8 a=djd9j7hWnewA:10 a=3mQisGbx5lUA:10 a=vWLUUH5Xqd-yPiJf6e0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Message-ID: <1401546229.2413.2.camel@slavad-CELSIUS-H720> Subject: Re: [RFC 24/32] hfs, hfsplus: convert to struct inode_time From: Vyacheslav Dubeyko To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, joseph@codesourcery.com, john.stultz@linaro.org, hch@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, geert@linux-m68k.org, lftan@altera.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 18:23:49 +0400 In-Reply-To: <1401480116-1973111-25-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1401480116-1973111-25-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Identified-User: {2172:host202.hostmonster.com:dubeykoc:dubeyko.com} {sentby:smtp auth 46.39.244.124 authed with slava@dubeyko.com} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnd, On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 22:01 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > hfs uses 32-bit integers based at 1904 for inode timestamps, which will > only work until 2040, but the VFS uses struct timespec for timestamps, > which expires even earlier in 2038 on 32-bit CPUs. > > This gets us one small step closer to lifting the VFS limit by using > struct inode_time in logfs. > I think you meant hfs/hfsplus here. I suppose that mentioning the logfs is simple misspelling. Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko.