On Friday, June 17, 2016 1:59:06 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:52 PM, John Stultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Deepa Dinamani <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:18 PM, John Stultz <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Deepa Dinamani <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> time_to_tm() takes time_t as an argument.
> >>>> time_t is not y2038 safe.
> >>>> Add time64_to_tm() that takes time64_t as an argument
> >>>> which is y2038 safe.
> >>>> The plan is to eventually replace all calls to time_to_tm()
> >>>> by time64_to_tm().
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <[email protected]>
> >>>> Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>
> >>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> This looks sane to me. Are you hoping for me to queue this, or would
> >>> you like i to go though the fsdev maintainers with my ack?
> >>>
> >>> In either case.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: John Stultz <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> This is only used by the scsi fnic driver.
> >> I will separate these 2 patches from this CURRENT_TIME series and
> >> then both the patches can be merged through the respective trees.
> >
> > Sorry, this was not quite clear. I've gone ahead and queued this one
> > patch for testing, but let me know and I'll drop it if its going
> > through a different tree.
>
> Ok.This works too.
Actually I have three more patches for other drivers that could use the
time64_to_tm() function. I'll post them next week and we can decide whether
we want to queue the driver changes on top (with the respective Ack).
Arnd
