Re: [PATCH] fs: use timespec64 in relatime_need_update

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: use timespec64 in relatime_need_update
From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:17:31 +0100
Cc: y2038@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20190426145053.2137025-1-arnd@arndb.de>
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:50:41PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> For some reason, the conversion of the VFS code away from 'struct timespec'
> left one function behind that still uses it, for absolutely no reason.
> 
> Using timespec64 will make the atime update logic work correctly past
> y2038.

Applied.

References:
- [PATCH] fs: use timespec64 in relatime_need_update
  - From: Arnd Bergmann

Prev by Date: [PATCH] fs: use timespec64 in relatime_need_update
Next by Date: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Direct block mapping through fs for device
Previous by thread: [PATCH] fs: use timespec64 in relatime_need_update
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Ext4 Filesystem] [Union Filesystem] [Filesystem Testing] [Ceph Users] [Ecryptfs] [AutoFS] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Cachefs] [Reiser Filesystem] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper] [CEPH Development]

Powered by Linux