On Monday 02 June 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > Ok. Sorry about missing linux-api, I confused it with linux-arch, which > > may not be as relevant here, except for the one question whether we > > actually want to have the new ABI on all 32-bit architectures or only > > as an opt-in for those that expect to stay around for another 24 years. > > For glibc I think it will make the most sense to add the support for > 64-bit time_t across all architectures that currently have 32-bit time_t > (with the new interfaces having fallback support to implementation in > terms of the 32-bit kernel interfaces, if the 64-bit syscalls are > unavailable either at runtime or in the kernel headers against which glibc > is compiled - this fallback code will of course need to check for overflow > when passing a time value to the kernel, hopefully with error handling > consistent with whatever the kernel ends up doing when a filesystem can't > support a timestamp). If some architectures don't provide the new > interfaces in the kernel then that will mean the fallback code in glibc > can't be removed until glibc support for those architectures is removed > (as opposed to removing it when glibc no longer supports kernels predating > the kernel support). Ok, that's a good reason to just provide the new interfaces on all architectures right away. Thanks for the insight! Arnd _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
