On Tuesday 03 June 2014 18:41:30 Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:33:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 June 2014 10:32:27 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:43:44PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Monday 02 June 2014 10:28:22 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:24:37AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 05:37:52PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > My patch set > > > > (at least with the 64-bit tv_sec) just gets 32-bit kernels to behave > > > > more like 64-bit kernels regarding inode time stamps, which does > > > > impact all the file systems that the a 64-bit time or the NFS > > > > unsigned epoch (1970-2106), while your patch extends the file > > > > system internal epoch (1901-2038 for XFS) so it can be used by > > > > anything that knows how to handle larger than 32-bit second values > > > > (either 64-bit kernel or 32-bit with inode_time patch). > > > > > > Right, but the issue is that 64 bit second counters are broken right > > > now because most filesystems can't support more than 32 bit values. > > > So it doesn't matter whether it's 32 bit or 64 bit machines, just > > > adding explicit support for >32 bit second counters without doing > > > anything else just extends that brokenness into the indefinite > > > future. > > > > Of course, "most filesystems" are obsolete, and most of the modern > > file systems already support >32 bit timestamps: ext4, btrfs, cifs, > > f2fs, 9p, nfsv4, ntfs, gfs2, ocfs2, fuse, ufs2. Everything else > > except xfs, ext2/3 and exofs uses the nfsv3 interpretation on > > 64-bit systems, which interprets time stamps with the high bit > > set as years 2038-2106 rather than 1903-1969. > > I'm not sure that's an entirely correct representation - the > remainder of the 32 bit-only timestamp filesystems don't actively > interpret the time stamp at all - it's just an opaque 32 bit value. > hence the interpretation of the value is dependent on whether the > kernel treats it as signed or unsigned.... As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I don't the way it's handled is intentional, but it's definitely the file system code that does the assignment to the timeval and decides on the interpretation, doing either inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = (signed)le32_to_cpu(raw_inode.mtime); or inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu(raw_inode.mtime); Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
