From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:34:12 -0700 Message-ID: <57071155-5a08-4579-9189-92d442cd65e7@email.android.com> References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <20140531145114.GA3721@localhost.localdomain> <6347520.8jMPlVsFjM@wuerfel> <20140531182237.GA5382@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, logfs@logfs.org, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, joseph@codesourcery.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, codalist@TELEMANN.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-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, lftan@altera.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Cochran , Arnd Bergmann Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140531182237.GA5382@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Typically they are using 64-bit signed seconds. On May 31, 2014 11:22:37 AM PDT, Richard Cochran wrote: >On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> It's an approximation: > >(Approximately never ;) > >> with 64-bit timestamps, you can represent close to 300 billion >> years, which is way past the time that our planet can sustain >> life of any form[1]. > >Did you mean mean 64 bits worth of seconds? > > 2^64 / (3600*24*365) = 584,942,417,355 > >That is more than 300 billion years, and still, it is not quite the >same as "never". > >In any case, that term is not too helpful in the comparison table, >IMHO. One could think that some sort of clever running count relative >to the last mount time was implied. > >Thanks, >Richard > >[1] You are forgetting the immortal robotic overlords. -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.