hat this isn't the way we want
to proceed with >y2038 on-disk support.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191112161242.ga19...@infradead.org/T/#maf6b2719ed561cc2865cc5e7eb82df206b971261
I'd suggest taking the discussion there
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:24:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:01:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> >> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> >> index 2c300e981796..e27bd933493
the local variable assignments....
...
> +#Remove log from last run
> +rm -f $seqres.full
> +
> +#install cleaner
> +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
> +
> +_scratch_mkfs &>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "mkfs failed"
> +read tsmin tsmax <<<$(_filesystem_timestamp_range $SCRATCH_DEV)
This is all test setup preamble, so should be at the top.
> +if [ $tsmin -eq -1 -a $tsmax -eq -1 ]; then
> +_notrun "filesystem $FSTYP timestamp bounds are unknown"
> +fi
This should be in a _requires_timestamp_range() function, I think.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
___
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
ate that the mount behaviour, clamping and range limiting is
working as intended?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
___
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 05:46:11PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 01:36:05AM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >> The VFS inode timestamps are not y2038 safe as they
tamp behaviour
on a 64 bit time kernel. These are things that we are going to need;
all filesystems should behave the same w.r.t. these configurations,
so we really do need regression tests for this
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
___
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:25:02PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 January 2016 07:49:46 Dave Chinner wrote:
> > You're doing it wrong. fat_time_fat2unix() still gets passed
> > >i_mtime, and the function prototype is changed to a
> > timespec64. *Noth
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:27:13PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:46:07PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 19 January 2016 08:14:59 Dave Chinne
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:46:07PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 January 2016 08:14:59 Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 08:53:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > 3. for each file system that uses struct timespec internally to pass
> > >
decode routines (my eyes, they
bleed!) that pass the VFS inode timestamp by reference to other
functions will need fixing here.
> 5. change the file systems to use timespec64 internally instead of
>timespec.
I think that will work and leave use with a relatively clean code
base, as well as be able to address y2038k support each individual
filesystem in our own time.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
___
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 06:01:36PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 15 January 2016 13:27:34 Dave Chinner wrote:
> > The point I'm making is that we'll have to modify all the existing
> > filesystem code to supply a valid timestamp range to the VFS at
> > mount time f
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 08:33:16AM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:29:57PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 09:42:36PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 04:33, Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wro
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:27:07AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 January 2016 19:29:57 Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > This is what I meant about premature optimisation - you've got a
> > wonderfully complex solution to a problem that we don't need to
> >
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 09:42:36PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 04:33, Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:35:59PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >> The current representation of inode
m]time
directly and hence are not going to compile after this patch series.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
___
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
15 matches
Mail list logo
