On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 11:45:01 AM CEST Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.ker...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > CURRENT_TIME_SEC and CURRENT_TIME are not y2038 safe. >> > current_fs_time() will be transitioned to be y2038 safe >> > along with vfs. >> > >> > current_fs_time() returns timestamps according to the >> > granularities set in the super_block. >> >> All existing users and all the ones in this patch (and the others too, >> although I didn't go through them very carefully) really would prefer >> just passing in the inode directly, rather than the superblock. >> >> So I don't want to add more users of this broken interface. It was a >> mistake to use the superblock. The fact that the time granularity >> exists there is pretty much irrelevant. If every single user wants to >> use an inode pointer, then that is what the function should get. > > I guess it would help to give the function a new name in the process, > if only to avoid possible conflicts. That new name of course needs to > be at least as intuitive as the old one. How about > > struct timespec fs_timestamp(struct inode *);
Would moving the function to fs/ directory (filesystems.c/ super.c / inode.c) and calling it current_time() or fs_current_time() make sense? The declaration is already part of fs.h. This is actually a vfs function. And, the time functions it uses are already exported. Leaving it in the time.c by renaming to current_time() would be confusing in spite of the struct inode* argument. -Deepa _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list Y2038@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
