[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:10:24 -0700
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, logfs@xxxxxxxxx, linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, coda@xxxxxxxxxx, geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fuse-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ntfs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lftan@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <8770583.6XeZxCxOY8@wuerfel>
References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@xxxxxxxx> <201406041703.47592.arnd@xxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1406041308300.17310@xxxxxxxxxxx> <8770583.6XeZxCxOY8@wuerfel>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
On 06/04/2014 12:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> For other timekeeping stuff in the kernel, I agree that using some
> 64-bit representation (nanoseconds, 32/32 unsigned seconds/nanoseconds,
> ...) has advantages, that's exactly the point I was making earlier
> against simply extending the internal time_t/timespec to 64-bit
> seconds for everything.

How much of a performance issue is it to make time_t 64 bits, and for
the bits there are, how hard are they to fix?


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