[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191207060201.GN4203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sat, 7 Dec 2019 06:02:01 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Delete timespec64_trunc()
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 06:43:26PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:20 PM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > This series aims at deleting timespec64_trunc().
> > There is a new api: timestamp_truncate() that is the
> > replacement api. The api additionally does a limits
> > check on the filesystem timestamps.
> 
> Al/Andrew, can one of you help merge these patches?
Looks sane.  Could you check if #misc.timestamp looks sane to you?
One thing that leaves me scratching head is kernfs - surely we
are _not_ limited by any external layouts there, so why do we
need to bother with truncation?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
