Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-179993-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-455-g0aad06e44-fm-20240509.001-g0aad06e4
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <ebf493ee-1e8b-426d-bcf4-d8e17d10844a@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3937d6b1-119b-195e-8b9b-314a0bfbeaeb@loongson.cn>
References: <20240511100157.2334539-1-chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
 <f92e23be-3f3f-4bc6-8711-3bcf6beb7fa2@app.fastmail.com>
 <3937d6b1-119b-195e-8b9b-314a0bfbeaeb@loongson.cn>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 14:25:28 +0000
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Bibo Mao" <maobibo@loongson.cn>, "Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>,
 "Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@kernel.org>
Cc: loongarch@lists.linux.dev, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
 "Xuefeng Li" <lixuefeng@loongson.cn>, guoren <guoren@kernel.org>,
 "WANG Xuerui" <kernel@xen0n.name>, "Jiaxun Yang" <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, loongson-kernel@lists.loongnix.cn,
 stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: Define __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT in unistd.h
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 15, 2024, at 09:30, maobibo wrote:
> On 2024/5/11 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=888:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Sat, May 11, 2024, at 12:01, Huacai Chen wrote:
>>=20
>> Importantly, we can't just add fstatat64() on riscv32 because
>> there is no time64 version for it other than statx(), and I don't
>> want the architectures to diverge more than necessary.
> yes, I agree. Normally there is newfstatat() on 64-bit architectures b=
ut=20
> fstatat64() on 32-bit ones.
>
> I do not understand why fstatat64() can be added for riscv32 still.
> 32bit timestamp seems works well for the present, it is valid until
> (0x1UL << 32) / 365 / 24 / 3600 + 1970 =3D=3D 2106 year. Year 2106 sho=
uld
> be enough for 32bit system.

There is a very small number of interfaces for which we ended up
not using a 64-bit time_t replacement, but those are only for
relative times, not epoch based offsets. The main problems
here are:

- time_t is defined to be a signed value in posix, and we need
  to handle file timestamps before 1970 in stat(), so changing
  this one to be unsigned is not an option.

- A lot of products have already shipped that will have to
  be supported past 2038 on existing 32-bit hardware. We
  cannot regress on architectures that have already been
  fixed to support this.=20

- file timestamps can also be set into the future, so applications
  relying on this are broken before 2038.

      Arnd