lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [EXT4 set 3][PATCH 1/1] ext4 nanosecond timestamp
    On Jul 04, 2007  12:06 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
    > Mingming Cao wrote:
    > >On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
    > >>On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
    > >>>+
    > >>>+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode) \
    > >>>+do { \
    > >>>+ (inode)->xtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu((raw_inode)->xtime);
    > >>>\
    > >>>+ if (EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(raw_inode, EXT4_I(inode), xtime ## _extra))
    > >>>\
    > >>>+ ext4_decode_extra_time(&(inode)->xtime,
    > >>>\
    > >>>+ raw_inode->xtime ## _extra);
    > >>>\
    > >>>+} while (0)
    > >>>+
    > >>>+#define EXT4_EINODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, einode, raw_inode) \
    > >>>+do { \
    > >>>+ if (EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(raw_inode, einode, xtime))
    > >>>\
    > >>>+ (einode)->xtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu((raw_inode)->xtime);
    > >>>\
    > >>>+ if (EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(raw_inode, einode, xtime ## _extra))
    > >>>\
    > >>>+ ext4_decode_extra_time(&(einode)->xtime,
    > >>>\
    > >>>+ raw_inode->xtime ## _extra);
    > >>>\
    > >>>+} while (0)
    > >>>+
    > >>This nanosecond patch seems to be missing the fix below which is
    > >>required for http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5079
    > >>
    > >>If the timestamp is set to before epoch i.e. a negative timestamp then
    > >>the file may have its date set into the future on 64-bit systems. So
    > >>when the timestamp is read it must be cast as signed.
    > >
    > >Missed this one.
    > >Thanks. Will update ext4 patch queue tonight with this fix.
    >
    > IIRC in the conference call it was decided to not to apply this patch.
    > Andreas may be able to update better.

    I wasn't on the most recent concall, and I've forgotten the details of
    any discussion on a previous concall.

    Care really needs to be taken here that negative timestamps are handled
    properly. We can take the sign bit from the inode i_*time, but then we
    need to change the load/save of the extra time to use a shift of 31
    instead of 32. If we overflow the epoch we have to ensure that the high
    bits of the seconds is handled correctly.

    Cheers, Andreas
    --
    Andreas Dilger
    Principal Software Engineer
    Cluster File Systems, Inc.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-04 18:47    [W:0.025 / U:13.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site