xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready

To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:34:12 -0700
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, logfs@xxxxxxxxx, linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, coda@xxxxxxxxxx, geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fuse-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ntfs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lftan@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140531182237.GA5382@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@xxxxxxxx> <20140531145114.GA3721@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6347520.8jMPlVsFjM@wuerfel> <20140531182237.GA5382@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: K-9 Mail for Android
Typically they are using 64-bit signed seconds.

On May 31, 2014 11:22:37 AM PDT, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
>On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> It's an approximation:
>
>(Approximately never ;)
>
>> with 64-bit timestamps, you can represent close to 300 billion
>> years, which is way past the time that our planet can sustain
>> life of any form[1].
>
>Did you mean mean 64 bits worth of seconds?
>
>  2^64 / (3600*24*365) = 584,942,417,355
>
>That is more than 300 billion years, and still, it is not quite the
>same as "never".
>
>In any case, that term is not too helpful in the comparison table,
>IMHO. One could think that some sort of clever running count relative
>to the last mount time was implied.
>
>Thanks,
>Richard
>
>[1] You are forgetting the immortal robotic overlords.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>