[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:37:46 +0200
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, 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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1406031427130.12421@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@xxxxxxxx> <5011138.W0gbOc20Qp@wuerfel> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1406031427130.12421@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-18-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
On Tuesday 03 June 2014 14:33:10 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I think John Stultz and Thomas Gleixner have already started looking
> > at how the timekeeping code can be updated. Once that is done, we should
> > be able to add a functional 64-bit gettimeofday/settimeofday syscall
> > pair. While I definitely agree this is one of the most basic things to
> > have, it's also not an area of the kernel that is easy to change.
> 64-bit clock_gettime / clock_settime instead of gettimeofday / 
> settimeofday should avoid the need for the kernel to have a 64-bit version 
> of struct timeval.  (Userspace 64-bit gettimeofday / settimeofday would 
> need to use a combination of the syscalls if the tz pointer is non-NULL.)

Yes, that's what I meant.


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