From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Arnd Bergmann To: y2038@lists.linaro.org Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Deepa Dinamani , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Y2038] [RFC 02/15] vfs: Change all structures to support 64 bit time Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:54:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4774139.hV6lmEpfqG@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <4096827.pGyVFmGqbD@wuerfel> References: <1452144972-15802-1-git-send-email-deepa.kernel@gmail.com> <20160114210000.GK6033@dastard> <4096827.pGyVFmGqbD@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 14 January 2016 23:46:16 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I'm not following the line of thought here. We have some users > that want ext4 to mount old file system images without long > inodes writable, because they don't care about the 2038 problem. > We also have other users that want to force the same file system > image to be read-only because they want to ensure that it does > not stop working correctly when the time overflow happens while > the fs is mounted. > > If you don't want a compile-time option for it, how do you suggest > we decide which case we have? In case that came across wrong, I'm assuming that the first user also wants all the system calls enabled that pass 32-bit time_t values, while the second one wants them all left out from the kernel to ensure that no user space program gets incorrect data. This could be done using a sysctl of course, but I still think we want a compile-time option for the syscalls for clarity, and I would simply use the same compile-time option to determine the behavior of the file system, network protocols and device drivers that deal with 32-bit timestamps outside of the kernel. Arnd