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: <31a671ea-a00b-37da-5f30-558c3ab6d690@thelounge.net>
 <20190904150251.27004-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com> <ECBC97E7-53C5-4B4C-BC4C-1FCDC4C371B9@dilger.ca>
In-Reply-To: <ECBC97E7-53C5-4B4C-BC4C-1FCDC4C371B9@dilger.ca>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 22:56:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1YnNbzoRE_=3_F9ppqNaS7TO3a+ccN7mCgwjSUuNcW3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Reduce ext4 timestamp warnings
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:39 PM Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 09:02, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > When ext4 file systems were created intentionally with 128 byte inodes,
> > the rate-limited warning of eventual possible timestamp overflow are
> > still emitted rather frequently.  Remove the warning for now.
> >
> > Discussion for whether any warning is needed,
> > and where it should be emitted, can be found at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1567523922.5576.57.camel@lca.pw/.
> > I can post a separate follow-up patch after the conclusion.
> >
> > Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
> > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
>
> I'd be in favor of a severely rare-limited warning in the actual case
> that Y2038 timestamps cannot be stored, but the current message is
> too verbose for now and I agree it is better to remove it while discussions
> on the best solution are underway.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>

Agreed completely.

Applied on top of the y2038 branch now, thanks a lot for the update!

This should be part of tomorrow's linux-next then.

       Arnd