Hi,
Looks like I missed the email to read for a patch
(mmots/broken-out/fat-propagate-64-bit-inode-timestamps.patch). Well,
so FWIW,
Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
And additionally cleanup patch here (this would be better to be folded
into his patch).
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
[PATCH] Cleanup "fat: propagate 64-bit inode timestamps" patch
- Remove useless temporary variable
- Remove needless long long
Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
---
fs/fat/inode.c | 10 +++-------
fs/fat/misc.c | 7 +++----
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff -puN fs/fat/inode.c~fat-propagate-64-bit-inode-timestamps-cleanup fs/fat/inode.c
--- linux/fs/fat/inode.c~fat-propagate-64-bit-inode-timestamps-cleanup 2018-08-18 09:23:27.990137305 +0900
+++ linux-hirofumi/fs/fat/inode.c 2018-08-18 09:32:52.629008507 +0900
@@ -509,7 +509,6 @@ static int fat_validate_dir(struct inode
int fat_fill_inode(struct inode *inode, struct msdos_dir_entry *de)
{
struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(inode->i_sb);
- struct timespec64 ts;
int error;
MSDOS_I(inode)->i_pos = 0;
@@ -559,14 +558,11 @@ int fat_fill_inode(struct inode *inode,
inode->i_blocks = ((inode->i_size + (sbi->cluster_size - 1))
& ~((loff_t)sbi->cluster_size - 1)) >> 9;
- fat_time_fat2unix(sbi, &ts, de->time, de->date, 0);
- inode->i_mtime = ts;
+ fat_time_fat2unix(sbi, &inode->i_mtime, de->time, de->date, 0);
if (sbi->options.isvfat) {
- fat_time_fat2unix(sbi, &ts, de->ctime,
+ fat_time_fat2unix(sbi, &inode->i_ctime, de->ctime,
de->cdate, de->ctime_cs);
- inode->i_ctime = ts;
- fat_time_fat2unix(sbi, &ts, 0, de->adate, 0);
- inode->i_atime = ts;
+ fat_time_fat2unix(sbi, &inode->i_atime, 0, de->adate, 0);
} else
inode->i_ctime = inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime;
diff -puN fs/fat/misc.c~fat-propagate-64-bit-inode-timestamps-cleanup fs/fat/misc.c
--- linux/fs/fat/misc.c~fat-propagate-64-bit-inode-timestamps-cleanup 2018-08-18 09:23:27.992137301 +0900
+++ linux-hirofumi/fs/fat/misc.c 2018-08-18 09:32:52.596008572 +0900
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ int fat_chain_add(struct inode *inode, i
#define IS_LEAP_YEAR(y) (!((y) & 3) && (y) != YEAR_2100)
/* Linear day numbers of the respective 1sts in non-leap years. */
-static time64_t days_in_year[] = {
+static long days_in_year[] = {
/* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec */
0, 0, 31, 59, 90, 120, 151, 181, 212, 243, 273, 304, 334, 0, 0, 0,
};
@@ -191,8 +191,7 @@ void fat_time_fat2unix(struct msdos_sb_i
{
u16 time = le16_to_cpu(__time), date = le16_to_cpu(__date);
time64_t second;
- long day, leap_day, month;
- long long year;
+ long day, leap_day, month, year;
year = date >> 9;
month = max(1, (date >> 5) & 0xf);
@@ -207,7 +206,7 @@ void fat_time_fat2unix(struct msdos_sb_i
second = (time & 0x1f) << 1;
second += ((time >> 5) & 0x3f) * SECS_PER_MIN;
second += (time >> 11) * SECS_PER_HOUR;
- second += (year * 365 + leap_day
+ second += (time64_t)(year * 365 + leap_day
+ days_in_year[month] + day
+ DAYS_DELTA) * SECS_PER_DAY;
_
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 2:34 AM OGAWA Hirofumi
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks like I missed the email to read for a patch
> (mmots/broken-out/fat-propagate-64-bit-inode-timestamps.patch). Well,
> so FWIW,
>
> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
>
> And additionally cleanup patch here (this would be better to be folded
> into his patch).
>
> Thanks.
> --
> OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
>
> [PATCH] Cleanup "fat: propagate 64-bit inode timestamps" patch
>
> - Remove useless temporary variable
> - Remove needless long long
>
> Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> /* Linear day numbers of the respective 1sts in non-leap years. */
> -static time64_t days_in_year[] = {
> +static long days_in_year[] = {
> /* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec */
> 0, 0, 31, 59, 90, 120, 151, 181, 212, 243, 273, 304, 334, 0, 0, 0,
> };
While this is correct, changing it back to a signed 'long' type seems
rather arbitrary. I tried to pick a type that would be the same on 32-bit
and 64-bit architectures, the other choice would have been 'u16',
which saves a few bytes.
A completely different approach would be to just use mktime()
and avoid reimplementing it.
Arnd
Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> writes:
>> /* Linear day numbers of the respective 1sts in non-leap years. */
>> -static time64_t days_in_year[] = {
>> +static long days_in_year[] = {
>> /* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec */
>> 0, 0, 31, 59, 90, 120, 151, 181, 212, 243, 273, 304, 334, 0, 0, 0,
>> };
>
> While this is correct, changing it back to a signed 'long' type seems
> rather arbitrary. I tried to pick a type that would be the same on 32-bit
> and 64-bit architectures, the other choice would have been 'u16',
> which saves a few bytes.
Right. However, "long long" on 32bit arch is not same. In this implement
"long long" works though, Some calculation needs libgcc helper (in
kernel, div64 stuff). I want to avoid it early than later, and I don't
care saving a few memory in here (I would not care if it was u16).
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>