On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Regarding the three versions, I think all of them are doable
> > doable, and they all have their upsides and downsides but no
> > showstoppers.
> >
> > Let me summarize what I see in the patches:
> >
> >
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Regarding the three versions, I think all of them are doable
> doable, and they all have their upsides and downsides but no
> showstoppers.
>
> Let me summarize what I see in the patches:
>
> 2a is the smallest set of changes in number of lines, as you
Changing a few things and accounting for false positives
(assuming worst case and rounding up for case 2a,
rounding down for 2b)
> * # Changes needed in 2a = row 1 + row 7 + row 8 + row 9 + row 10
> = 34 + 80 + 10 + 3 + 3 = 130
> * # Changes needed in 2b = row 1 + row 4 +
Changing a few things, accounting for false positives
(assuming worst case and rounding up for case 2a,
rounding down for 2b)
> * # Changes needed in 2a = row 1 + row 7 + row 8 + row 9 + row 10
> = 34 + 80 + 10 + 3 + 3 = 130
> * # Changes needed in 2b = row 1 + row 4 +
Introduction
This is a follow on to the series: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/7/20 [1].
This is aimed at reaching a consensus on how to transition the vfs
timestamps to use 64 bit time. This demonstrates three ways (2a, 2b and
2c) of solving this problem. Each of the proposals has its own cover
On Friday 12 February 2016 01:21:59 Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> Introduction
>
> This is a follow on to the series: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/7/20 [1].
> This is aimed at reaching a consensus on how to transition the vfs
> timestamps to use 64 bit time. This demonstrates three ways (2a, 2b and
>
> Regarding the three versions, I think all of them are doable
> doable, and they all have their upsides and downsides but no
> showstoppers.
I agree that all the approaches are doable.
> Let me summarize what I see in the patches:
>
> 2a is the smallest set of changes in number of lines, as you
