On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:02 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:16 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Amir just send another patch dealing with the time stamps. I'd suggest
> > you chime into the discussion in that thread.
>
> That's right I just posted the ext4 style extend to 34bits yesterday [1],
> but I like your version so much better, so I will withdraw mine.
Thanks! I guess we probably want part of both in the end. I considered
adding wrappers for encoding and decoding the timestamp like yours
but in the end went with open-coding that part. The difference is pretty
minimal, should we leave it with the open-coded addition?
One part that I was missing (as described in my changelog) is any
versioning or feature flag, including the dynamically set sb->s_time_max
value. From looking at your patch, I guess this is something we want.
> Sorry I did not CC you nor Deepa nor y2038 list.
> I did not think you were going to actually deal with specific filesystems.
I was not going to, but in the process of cleaning up the remaining ioctls
I came to xfs last week and thought it would be silly to extend the uapi
but not the file system ;-)
> I'd also like to hear people's thoughts about migration process.
> Should the new feature be ro_compat as I defined it or incompat?
>
> If all agree that Arnd's format change is preferred, I can assist with
> xfsprogs patches, tests or whatnot.
Awesome, that would be great indeed!
Arnd
