From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:33:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <7175692.dpgYFMbTaP@wuerfel> <538CF346.2070504@zytor.com> <5011138.W0gbOc20Qp@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5011138.W0gbOc20Qp@wuerfel> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I think John Stultz and Thomas Gleixner have already started looking > at how the timekeeping code can be updated. Once that is done, we should > be able to add a functional 64-bit gettimeofday/settimeofday syscall > pair. While I definitely agree this is one of the most basic things to > have, it's also not an area of the kernel that is easy to change. 64-bit clock_gettime / clock_settime instead of gettimeofday / settimeofday should avoid the need for the kernel to have a 64-bit version of struct timeval. (Userspace 64-bit gettimeofday / settimeofday would need to use a combination of the syscalls if the tz pointer is non-NULL.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com