On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 10:04:45 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote: >> CURRENT_TIME_SEC is not y2038 safe. current_fs_time() will >> be transitioned to use 64 bit time along with vfs in a >> separate patch. >> There is no plan to transistion CURRENT_TIME_SEC to use >> y2038 safe time interfaces. >> >> current_fs_time() will also be extended to use superblock >> range checking parameters when range checking is introduced. >> >> This works because alloc_super() fills in the the s_time_gran >> in super block to NSEC_PER_SEC. >> >> Also note that filesystem specific times like the birthtime, >> creation time that were using same interfaces to obtain time >> retain same logistics. >> >> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> > > one question: > > In an earlier version, you had a small optimization to > use ktime_get_real_seconds() instead of current_kernel_time() > when the granularity is seconds. > > Do you still plan to send that one, or did you decide we don't > need it? I was actually planning to use get_seconds() instead of current_kernel_time(). And, transition both along with vfs to y2038 safe apis. Difference between ktime_get_real_seconds() and current_kernel_time64() is not much because they both require sequence counter. It didn't make sense to me to optimize current_fs_time() for seconds only, and not optimize for 1ns granularity also. I plan to make changes to the function depending on how we end up using timespec_trunc() after the addition of range checking. Thanks for the guidance on inclusion of reviewers. I'll follow this approach when I post v2 of the series. -Deepa -- 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
