[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538FB570.8000502@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:10:24 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
CC: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, hch@...radead.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, logfs@...fs.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, coda@...cmu.edu, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, codalist@...emann.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, john.stultz@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lftan@...era.com,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready
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?
-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