From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752260AbaFBV7R (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:59:17 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:57079 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751982AbaFBV7N (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:59:13 -0400 Message-ID: <538CF346.2070504@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:57:26 -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 CC: "Joseph S. Myers" , 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> <538CCFDE.2010107@zytor.com> <7175692.dpgYFMbTaP@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <7175692.dpgYFMbTaP@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 12:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> 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