[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5389252A.5050503@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:41:14 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/32] xfs: convert to struct inode_time
On 05/30/2014 05:37 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> IOWs, the filesystem has to be able to reject any attempt to set a
> timestamp that is can't represent on disk otherwise Bad Stuff will
> happen,
Actually it is questionable if it is worse to reject a timestamp or just
let it wrap. Rejecting a valid timestamp is a bit like "You don't
exist, go away."
> and filesystems have to be able to specify in their on
> disk format what timestamp encoding is being used. The solution will
> be different for every filesystem that needs to support time beyond
> 2038.
Actually the cutoff can be really different for each filesystem, not
necessarily 2038. However, I maintain the above still holds.
Consider a filesystem that kept timestamps in YYMMDDHHMMSS format. What
would you have expected such a filesystem to do on Jan 1, 2000?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists