On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:52 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 05:45:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:05 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What is the timeline for that work now? I'm mainly interested in
> > getting the removal of 'time_t/timeval/timespec' and 'get_seconds()'
> > from the kernel done for v5.6, but it would be good to also have
> > this patch and the extended timestamps in the same version
> > just so we can claim that "all known y2038 issues" are addressed
> > in that release (I'm sure we will run into bugs we don't know yet).
>
> Personally, I think you should push this whenever it's ready. Are you
> aiming to send all 24 patches as a treewide pull request directly to
> Linus, or would you rather the 2-3 xfs patches go through the xfs tree?
My plan is get as much of the remaining 60 patches into maintainer
trees for v5.6 and then send a pull request for whatever remains that
has not been picked up by anyone.
The 24 patches are the ones that didn't seem worth splitting into a
separate series, aside from these I also have v4l2, alsa and nfsd
pending, plus a final cleanup that removes the then-unused
interfaces.
So if you can pick up the xfs patches, that would help me.
> The y2038 format changes are going to take a while to push through
> review. If somehow it all gets through review for 5.6 I can always
> apply both and fix the merge damage, but more likely y2038 timestamps is
> a <cough> 5.8 EXPERIMENTAL thing.
>
> Or later, given that Dave and I both have years worth of unreviewed
> patch backlog. :(
Ok, I see.
Arnd
