On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 February 2016 10:00:19 Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> > On Feb 4, 2016, at 05:27, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> {
>> struct ceph_timespec ts;
>> ceph_encode_timespec(&ts, &req->r_stamp);
>> ceph_encode_copy(&p, &ts, sizeof(ts));
>> }
>
> Ok, that does make the behavior consistent on all architectures, but
> leads to a different question:
>
> struct ceph_timespec {
> __le32 tv_sec;
> __le32 tv_nsec;
> } __attribute__ ((packed));
>
> How do you define ceph_timespec, is tv_sec supposed to be signed or unsigned?
>
> It seems that you treat it as signed, meaning you interpret times
> from the server as being in the [1902..2038] range, rather than the
> [1970..2106] range:
>
> static inline void ceph_decode_timespec(struct timespec *ts,
> const struct ceph_timespec *tv)
> {
> ts->tv_sec = (__kernel_time_t)le32_to_cpu(tv->tv_sec);
> ts->tv_nsec = (long)le32_to_cpu(tv->tv_nsec);
> }
>
> Is that intentional and documented? If yes, what is your plan to deal
> with y2038 support?
tv_sec is used as a time_t, so signed. The problem is that ceph_timespec is
not only passed over the wire, but is also stored on disk, part of quite a few
other data structures. The plan is to eventually switch to a 64-bit tv_sec and
tv_nsec, bump the version on all the structures that contain it and add
a cluster-wide feature bit to deal with older clients. We've recently had
a discussion about this, so it may even happen in a not so distant future, but
no promises ;)
Thanks,
Ilya
--
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
