Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180619140229.3615110-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180619140229.3615110-2-arnd@arndb.de>
 <CAMuHMdXHUwbD4ZBuQz-xYQO=QdYdPS=j=oLWBet6B7PrGEkT9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.21.1807182201560.41@nippy.intranet> <CAK8P3a0OBVu-o6kFCS=gV83EcH9ba9QYGZBBhB9D8cJrf=8akA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.21.1807182333150.41@nippy.intranet> <alpine.LNX.2.21.1807222145330.56@nippy.intranet>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1807222145330.56@nippy.intranet>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:08:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdX-q1jGqpi84=AVuP=14t5S8qs-+NxJmLZ814nZL12M+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [v2] m68k: mac: use time64_t in RTC handling
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Joshua Thompson <funaho@jurai.org>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@lists.linaro.org>,
        Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>,
        Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Finn,

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, I wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > I'd suggest we do it like below to make it consistent with the rest
> > > again, using the 1904..2040 range of dates and no warning for invalid
> > > dates.
> > >
> > > If you agree, I'll send that as a proper patch.
> >
> > Geert may instead wish to fixup or revert the patch he has committed
> > already...
>
> Geert, how do you want to handle this?
>
> Do you want a fixup patch or a v3 patch with the WARN_ON and the other two
> issues addressed?

Please send a fixup patch, for the m68k/master branch, which is non-rebasing.
I'll fold it into the original commit on the m68k/for-next branch.

> I'm willing to send either one if Arnd is okay with that. I'd really like
> to resolve this before the merge window opens, since my PMU patch series
> is affected.

+1. If it's not resolved (a few days) before the merge window opens, I may have
to revert the patch instead.

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds