Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v2 00/24] Delete CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC macros

Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-22T15:49:48Z

On Sunday, June 19, 2016 5:26:59 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> The series is aimed at getting rid of CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC macros.
> The macros are not y2038 safe. There is no plan to transition them into being
> y2038 safe.
> ktime_get_* api's can be used in their place. And, these are y2038 safe.
>
> Thanks to Arnd Bergmann for all the guidance and discussions.
>
> Patches 2-4 were mostly generated using coccinelle scripts.
>
> All filesystem timestamps use current_fs_time() for right granularity as
> mentioned in the respective commit texts of patches. This has a changed
> signature, renamed to current_time() and moved to the fs/inode.c.
>
> This series also serves as a preparatory series to transition vfs to 64 bit
> timestamps as outlined here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/12/104 .
>
> As per Linus's suggestion in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/663 , all the
> inode timestamp changes have been squashed into a single patch. Also,
> current_time() now is used as a single generic vfs filesystem timestamp api.
> It also takes struct inode* as argument instead of struct super_block*.
> Posting all patches together in a bigger series so that the big picture is
> clear.
>
> As per the suggestion in https://lwn.net/Articles/672598/, CURRENT_TIME macro
> bug fixes are being handled in a series separate from transitioning vfs to use.

I've looked in detail at all the patches in this version now, and while
overall everything is fine, I found that two patches cannot be part of the
series because of the dependency on the patch that John already took (adding
time64_to_tm), but I think that's ok because we just need to change over
all the users of CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC that assign to inode
timestamps in order to prepare for the type change, the other ones
can be changed later.

I also found a few things that could be done differently to make the
later conversion slightly easier, but it's also possible that I missed
part of your bigger plan for those files, and none of them seem important.

Arnd

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list