From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F707F3F for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:06:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36BA30406B for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 08:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ImLb3CHALbSNSMOC (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 08:06:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:05:27 +0200 References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <4233989.Saca0ocOUr@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201406041705.27599.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: hch@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, logfs@logfs.org, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, codalist@coda.cs.cmu.edu, cluster-devel@redhat.com, coda@cs.cmu.edu, geert@linux-m68k.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, john.stultz@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, lftan@altera.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Monday 02 June 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > Ok. Sorry about missing linux-api, I confused it with linux-arch, which > > may not be as relevant here, except for the one question whether we > > actually want to have the new ABI on all 32-bit architectures or only > > as an opt-in for those that expect to stay around for another 24 years. > > For glibc I think it will make the most sense to add the support for > 64-bit time_t across all architectures that currently have 32-bit time_t > (with the new interfaces having fallback support to implementation in > terms of the 32-bit kernel interfaces, if the 64-bit syscalls are > unavailable either at runtime or in the kernel headers against which glibc > is compiled - this fallback code will of course need to check for overflow > when passing a time value to the kernel, hopefully with error handling > consistent with whatever the kernel ends up doing when a filesystem can't > support a timestamp). If some architectures don't provide the new > interfaces in the kernel then that will mean the fallback code in glibc > can't be removed until glibc support for those architectures is removed > (as opposed to removing it when glibc no longer supports kernels predating > the kernel support). Ok, that's a good reason to just provide the new interfaces on all architectures right away. Thanks for the insight! Arnd _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs