No, not a strawman. Replace with Jan 26, 2038 and you have the same situation. On May 30, 2014 6:14:50 PM PDT, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:41:14PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 05/30/2014 05:37 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> > >> > IOWs, the filesystem has to be able to reject any attempt to set a >> > timestamp that is can't represent on disk otherwise Bad Stuff will >> > happen, >> >> Actually it is questionable if it is worse to reject a timestamp or >just >> let it wrap. Rejecting a valid timestamp is a bit like "You don't >> exist, go away." > >I think having the new systems calls being able to >return EINVAL if the value cannot be stored permanently on disk >correctly is the right thing to do. Having it silently mangled >by the filesystem and returning "everything is just fine, trust me" >is close to the worst solution I can think of. That's exactly what >leads to overflow bugs occurring.... > >> > and filesystems have to be able to specify in their on >> > disk format what timestamp encoding is being used. The solution >will >> > be different for every filesystem that needs to support time beyond >> > 2038. >> >> Actually the cutoff can be really different for each filesystem, not >> necessarily 2038. However, I maintain the above still holds. > >Sure, but all filesystems are supposed to handle at least the >current unix epoch. > >> Consider a filesystem that kept timestamps in YYMMDDHHMMSS format. >What >> would you have expected such a filesystem to do on Jan 1, 2000? > >Strawman. > >We don't need to cater for fundamentally broken designs that can't >even handle the current unix epoch correctly. If such filesystems >exist, then they can simple say "original unix epoch support only" >and do whatever crap they are doing right now. > >Cheers, > >Dave. -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
