> Deepa has proposed a patch series for this in the past, limiting > the range of the timestamps to whatever is supported to prevent > an overflow. > > It's probably way in her backlog of other patch series to do first, but > it's certainly still on the radar. I plan to re-post the series. It needs a little clean up. We did not reach a consensus on the subject previously that wrong error returns(according to POSIX) while using utimes, stat etc. are motivation enough to maintain filesystem timestamp ranges. -Deepa
