From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753490AbaFBT2J (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:28:09 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:55028 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751157AbaFBT2F (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:28:05 -0400 Message-ID: <538CCFDE.2010107@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:26:22 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann , "Joseph S. Myers" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, john.stultz@linaro.org, hch@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, geert@linux-m68k.org, lftan@altera.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, coda@cs.cmu.edu, codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, logfs@logfs.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <4233989.Saca0ocOUr@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <4233989.Saca0ocOUr@wuerfel> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/02/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 02 June 2014 13:52:19 Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >>> a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion >>> pointed this way, but there may be other opinions. >> >> The syscall changes seem like the sort of thing I'd expect, although >> patches adding new syscalls or otherwise affecting the kernel/userspace >> interface (as opposed to those relating to an individual filesystem) >> should go to linux-api as well as other relevant lists. > > Ok. Sorry about missing linux-api, I confused it with linux-arch, which > may not be as relevant here, except for the one question whether we > actually want to have the new ABI on all 32-bit architectures or only > as an opt-in for those that expect to stay around for another 24 years. > > Two more questions for you: > > - are you (and others) happy with adding this type of stat syscall > (fstatat64/fstat64) as opposed to the more generic xstat that has > been discussed in the past and that never made it through the bike- > shedding discussion? > > - once we have enough buy-in from reviewers to merge this initial > series, should we proceed to define rest of the syscall ABI > (minus driver ioctls) so glibc and kernel can do the conversion > on top of that, or should we better try to do things one syscall > family at a time and actually get the kernel to handle them > correctly internally? > 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. -hpa