On Thursday 14 January 2016 23:46:16 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I'm not following the line of thought here. We have some users > that want ext4 to mount old file system images without long > inodes writable, because they don't care about the 2038 problem. > We also have other users that want to force the same file system > image to be read-only because they want to ensure that it does > not stop working correctly when the time overflow happens while > the fs is mounted. > > If you don't want a compile-time option for it, how do you suggest > we decide which case we have? In case that came across wrong, I'm assuming that the first user also wants all the system calls enabled that pass 32-bit time_t values, while the second one wants them all left out from the kernel to ensure that no user space program gets incorrect data. This could be done using a sysctl of course, but I still think we want a compile-time option for the syscalls for clarity, and I would simply use the same compile-time option to determine the behavior of the file system, network protocols and device drivers that deal with 32-bit timestamps outside of the kernel. 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
