From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] timerfd: Allow TFD_TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET with relative timeouts
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:18:22 +0200
Message-ID: <27613722.NGRuyuj3GB@wuerfel>
References: <20151009082514.GY4919@axis.com> <CALAqxLVS+NBpz63d3bkQO5yv9gebuotjBdimb2o8X1KitSEqHA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk@man7.org>,
	Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLVS+NBpz63d3bkQO5yv9gebuotjBdimb2o8X1KitSEqHA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Monday 19 October 2015 11:53:25 John Stultz wrote:
> 
> But yea. At the same time I get you want to avoid user-pain like in
> the case of the badly initialized RTC, but in that case would
> returning 0 for RTC reads greater then y2038 on 32 bit systems be a
> more sane fix?

I like that idea. In theory we could go further and check that the RTC
is somewhere between 2015 and 2037 (or higher on 64-bit systems) but
return 0 (1970) for anything that is outside of that range. That might
have side-effects for users that have a legitimate reason to backdate
their clocks though.

	Arnd