From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751108AbcFIVKm (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:10:42 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:33350 "EHLO mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751016AbcFIVKh (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:10:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <89EF59F9-52D2-4F37-A7A8-52BD0FF7E98E@primarydata.com> References: <1465448705-25055-1-git-send-email-deepa.kernel@gmail.com> <1465448705-25055-19-git-send-email-deepa.kernel@gmail.com> <89EF59F9-52D2-4F37-A7A8-52BD0FF7E98E@primarydata.com> From: Deepa Dinamani Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:10:35 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/21] fs: nfs: Make nfs boot time y2038 safe To: Trond Myklebust Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Thomas Gleixner , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds , "y2038@lists.linaro.org" , Anna Schumaker , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>boot_time is represented as a struct timespec. >>struct timespec and CURRENT_TIME are not y2038 safe. >>Overall, the plan is to use timespec64 for all internal >>kernel representation of timestamps. >>CURRENT_TIME will also be removed. >>Use struct timespec64 to represent boot_time. >>And, ktime_get_real_ts64() for the boot_time value. >> >>boot_time is used to construct the nfs client boot verifier. >>This will now wrap in 2106 instead of 2038 on 32-bit systems. >>The server only relies on the value being persistent until >>reboot so the wrapping should be fine. > > We really do not give a damn about wraparound here, since the boot time is > only ever compared for an exact match, and the odds of two reboots occurring > exactly 2^32 * 10^9 nanoseconds apart are cosmically small... > If struct timespec is going away, can we just convert this into a ktime_t? timespec64 is the same as timespec already on 64 bit machines. But, yes, we can use ktime_t here. Did you mean the internal storage value or the wire boo_time used for verifier? In case you don't want to change the wire value, then we will have a division operation, every time the verifier needs to be sent. -Deepa -Deepa