From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] (Resend) 2038 Kernel Summit Discussion Fodder
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 00:26:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140823222640.GA1382@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLWvSn2_6dakGiQ4VEtYHH2Dt7BL0pn5XHgLWOV4ePqhBw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi!
> There was also some pre-discussion before the sessions started around
> why we don't just change time_t to be unsigned. From the kernel's
> point of view this would be mostly fine, since dates before 1970 are
> not considered valid for any internal uses (with the exception of some
> filesystem timestamps). However, the problem with this approach is
> that userspace may want to handle dates prior to 1970, so this would
> eliminate that possibility. And removing the sign could cause problems
> with existing comparison logic. There is also the fact that having the
> same time unit range on 32bit and 64bit systems avoids complicating
> how timestamps are interpreted between architectures, where as having
> it be unsigned on 32bit but signed on 64bit would likely cause
> confusion. It is quite likely that using unsigned timestamps will be a
> useful solution for cases where timestamps cannot be converted to
> 64bits, but from the kernel perspective if we are going to change the
> abi, we should probably go all the way to 64bits. There seemed to be
> no disagreement here.
>
> For the rest of the session, I opened it up for further thoughts or
> ideas. While there wasn't any new proposals, there was a question as
> to if anyone will really be running 32bit hardware in 2038, which made
> some folks point out that as systems get smaller there are likely to
> be tiny embedded platforms using Linux. The point that these systems
I'm pretty sure people will run 32bit hardware in 2038... that is not even
a question.
Today, there's good chance there's linux somewhere in your car. (Dashboard,
entertainment system). People like to keep cars from 1910 working, and I suspect
that is not going to change.
So yes, in 2038 people will be running 32bit linux.
Whether there will be people putting 32bit linux into new devices is a question,
but I suspect answer is still yes.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-04 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-13 0:08 John Stultz
2014-08-13 1:33 ` josh
2014-08-13 1:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-08-13 9:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-08-13 3:45 ` John Stultz
2014-08-13 20:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-08-13 21:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-08-27 18:34 ` John Stultz
2014-08-23 22:26 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2014-09-08 17:55 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-09-08 18:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140823222640.GA1382@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox