[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:21:29 +0200
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lftan@xxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, coda@xxxxxxxxxx, codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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: <1401546649.2413.6.camel@slavad-CELSIUS-H720>
References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@xxxxxxxx> <1401546649.2413.6.camel@slavad-CELSIUS-H720>
User-agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-18-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
On Saturday 31 May 2014 18:30:49 Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> By the way, what about NILFS2? Is NILFS2 ready for suggested approach
> without any changes?

nilfs2 and a lot of other file systems don't need any changes for
this, because they don't assign the inode time stamp fields to
a 'struct timespec'.

FWIW, nilfs2 uses a 64-bit seconds value, which is always safe and
can represent the full range of user space timespec on all machines.


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