lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] LoongArch: Define __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT in unistd.h
From
Date


On 2024/5/15 下午10:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024, at 09:30, maobibo wrote:
>> On 2024/5/11 下午8:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 11, 2024, at 12:01, Huacai Chen wrote:
>>>
>>> Importantly, we can't just add fstatat64() on riscv32 because
>>> there is no time64 version for it other than statx(), and I don't
>>> want the architectures to diverge more than necessary.
>> yes, I agree. Normally there is newfstatat() on 64-bit architectures but
>> fstatat64() on 32-bit ones.
>>
>> I do not understand why fstatat64() can be added for riscv32 still.
>> 32bit timestamp seems works well for the present, it is valid until
>> (0x1UL << 32) / 365 / 24 / 3600 + 1970 == 2106 year. Year 2106 should
>> be enough for 32bit system.
>
> There is a very small number of interfaces for which we ended up
> not using a 64-bit time_t replacement, but those are only for
> relative times, not epoch based offsets. The main problems
> here are:
>
> - time_t is defined to be a signed value in posix, and we need
> to handle file timestamps before 1970 in stat(), so changing
> this one to be unsigned is not an option.
>
> - A lot of products have already shipped that will have to
> be supported past 2038 on existing 32-bit hardware. We
> cannot regress on architectures that have already been
> fixed to support this.
>
> - file timestamps can also be set into the future, so applications
> relying on this are broken before 2038.
I see. And thanks for detailed explanation.

Regards
Bibo Mao
>
> Arnd
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 18:29    [W:0.063 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site