From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE57995 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 01:25:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E8861F968 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 01:25:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53683A02.6060106@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:25:22 +0800 From: Li Zefan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Stultz References: <5367D989.1000504@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <5367D989.1000504@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Dealing with 2038 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2014/5/6 2:33, John Stultz wrote: > I'd like to discuss some thoughts on how to address the 2038 issues on > 32bit architectures. This is important, as vendors are still producing > lots of 32bit hardware, which may very well have 24+ year lifespans > (think industrial control applications, security systems). This is definitely true for some of our products, so we're aware of this issue and concerned about it. > NetBSD and > OpenBSD have recently broken their ABI, converted their time_t to long > long, to properly address this. So I'd like to discuss thoughts on how > Linux can do similar despite our no-breaking-userspace rules, after all, > one way or another (almost) all of Linux's 32bit architectures are > terminally broken past 2038. > > Thomas (who I don't think can attend due to other plans) and I have had > some small talks about this and we have different initial preferences on > how to go about solving things, so I'd like to present the pros and cons > of the current options we're stewing on, open the discussion up to other > ideas, and see if there's a consensus on which way to go. > > thanks > -john