[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7080340.W1OdttOEiZ@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:21:29 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
joseph@...esourcery.com, john.stultz@...aro.org, hch@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, geert@...ux-m68k.org, lftan@...era.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
coda@...cmu.edu, codalist@...a.cs.cmu.edu,
fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
logfs@...fs.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
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.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists