Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.131]:55366 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752498AbaFDPG1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:06:27 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:05:27 +0200 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, john.stultz@linaro.org, hch@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, geert@linux-m68k.org, lftan@altera.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, coda@cs.cmu.edu, codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, logfs@logfs.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <4233989.Saca0ocOUr@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <201406041705.27599.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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