Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1567523922.5576.57.camel@lca.pw> <CABeXuvoPdAbDr-ELxNqUPg5n84fubZJZKiryERrXdHeuLhBQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190903211747.GD2899@mit.edu> <CABeXuvoYh0mhg049+pXbMqh-eM=rw+Ui1=rDree4Yb=7H7mQRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0AcPzuGeNFMW=ymO0wH_cmgnynLGYXGjqyrQb65o6aOw@mail.gmail.com> <20190903223815.GH2899@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190903223815.GH2899@mit.edu>
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:47:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABeXuvp2F4cr_77UJDYVfQ=gD8QXn+t4X3Qxs6YbyMXYJYO7mg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "beyond 2038" warnings from loopback mount is noisy
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > index 9e3ae3be3de9..5a971d1b6d5e 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > @@ -835,7 +835,9 @@ do {
> >                                  \
> >                 }
> >          \
> >         else    {\
> >                 (raw_inode)->xtime = cpu_to_le32(clamp_t(int32_t,
> > (inode)->xtime.tv_sec, S32_MIN, S32_MAX));    \
> > -               ext4_warning_inode(inode, "inode does not support
> > timestamps beyond 2038"); \
> > +               if (((inode)->xtime.tv_sec != (raw_inode)->xtime) &&     \
> > +                   ((inode)->i_sb->s_time_max > S32_MAX))
> >          \
> > +                       ext4_warning_inode(inode, "inode does not
> > support timestamps beyond 2038"); \
> >         } \
> >  } while (0)
>
> Sure, that's much less objectionable.

The reason it was warning for every update was because of the
ratelimiting. I think ratelimiting is not working well here. I will
check that part.

-Deepa