From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
y2038@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] vfs: Add file timestamp range support
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 01:56:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170219015638.GG29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1487460608-15697-2-git-send-email-deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:30:04PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> Add fields to the superblock to track the min and max
> timestamps supported by filesystems.
>
> Initially, when a superblock is allocated, initialize
> it to the max and min values the fields can hold.
> Individual filesystems override these to match their
> actual limits.
>
> Pseudo filesystems are assumed to always support the
> min and max allowable values for the fields.
> @@ -257,6 +257,8 @@ struct dentry *mount_pseudo_xattr(struct file_system_type *fs_type, char *name,
> + s->s_time_min = TIME64_MIN;
> + s->s_time_max = TIME64_MAX;
> @@ -518,6 +520,8 @@ int simple_fill_super(struct super_block *s, unsigned long magic,
> + s->s_time_min = TIME64_MIN;
> + s->s_time_max = TIME64_MAX;
> @@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags,
> + s->s_time_min = TIME64_MIN;
> + s->s_time_max = TIME64_MAX;
If we always initialize them that way, why does libfs.c code bother
reassign the same values?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-19 1:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-18 23:30 [PATCH v3 0/5] vfs: Add timestamp range check support Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] vfs: Add file timestamp range support Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-19 1:56 ` Al Viro [this message]
2017-02-19 19:23 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] vfs: Add checks for filesystem timestamp limits Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] ext4: Initialize timestamps limits Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] vfs: Add timestamp_truncate() api Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-19 6:26 ` kbuild test robot
2017-02-19 6:26 ` kbuild test robot
2017-02-21 18:18 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-21 18:18 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] utimes: Clamp the timestamps before update Deepa Dinamani
2017-02-18 23:30 ` Deepa Dinamani
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170219015638.GG29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=y2038@lists.linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.