xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 06:46:09 +0200
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, 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
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=yV1sqBiUTth5pubGvlu+YDYFfK3jNlMJWhzA6+nKkQU=; b=cFx+L+qN5cx3q87HfgaRR7M7JDxljzARCu0WaX29AmFCHRn3/SCA0RRK/Du4mRwpug ThQDFhWRSQnaKp0Xb+8Hm0gCann+2xQtug8gIVIZzgghmtBGHGQSVJRMKhyahpCoCyCv Er2WZ/DInQEjqOlmq4cc0K5mQiYYvDBurDQpLR1gWIIJwVHw+EGe9iANsceFmIi3/+IX FPX12EHgy051HzN4hvkDQdQzerGEHV0SxN08KjE8BfnwDl0XiBNEs1W3oF/WT0Eljtz7 w7+VrSaeGlsGERwioqJBG5PJRTbQNOUStf5i0ChenuooZZT0jDrttbGrbjpkmaSahouR 9DGQ==
In-reply-to: <57071155-5a08-4579-9189-92d442cd65e7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@xxxxxxxx> <20140531145114.GA3721@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6347520.8jMPlVsFjM@wuerfel> <20140531182237.GA5382@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <57071155-5a08-4579-9189-92d442cd65e7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:34:12PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Typically they are using 64-bit signed seconds.

Okay, that is what I wanted to know.

Thanks,
Richard

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