[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:26:22 -0700
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lftan@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, coda@xxxxxxxxxx, codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fuse-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ntfs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, logfs@xxxxxxxxx, ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4233989.Saca0ocOUr@wuerfel>
References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@xxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1406021350030.19591@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4233989.Saca0ocOUr@wuerfel>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
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

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.


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