[lustre-devel] [PATCH 32/37] staging/lustre: use 64-bit times for exp_last_request_time

[Drokin, Oleg]

On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Friday 25 September 2015 01:39:49 Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:07 PM, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyway this does remove a lot of stuff that we don't really need in the client,
>>>>>>> I'll try to get it built and tested just to make sure it does not really break anything
>>>>>>> (unfortunately it does not seem to apply cleanly to the tip of staging-next tree).
>>>>>> Ok. I based the patches on top of my 37 patch series, and if you want I can
>>>>>> upload a git branch somewhere to make rebasing easier.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That would be great.
>>>>> Though in the end likely this huge patch would need to be split into smaller chunks.
>>>>> Like if all unused llog code removal is done, that would allow subsequent dt_object.[ch]
>>>>> removal and so on.
>>>>> But for testing a current snapshot would be great, then I can run it through my testbed
>>>>> to see how it fares there.
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, I've pushed out the branch to
>>>> 
>>>> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git y2038-lustre
>>>> 
>>>> This contains the latest version of the y2038 series (with the warning fixed
>>>> that Sudip Mukherjee found) but no other changes, and the big code removal
>>>> on top.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> These do seem to be working fine in my testing.
>> 
>> Ah, and I should mention that just as I suspected, the debug log decoding tool
>> is very unhappy.
> 
> I have updated the branch now to reflect our discussions so far. Can you handle
> forwarding the patches to Greg from there, or complain if there are still
> problems with them?

Aha, sure.
Do you want me to send the y2038 patches too?

> I still had problems with removing ptlrpc_update_export_timer(), so I left
> a small patch for that, which you probably want to do differently, and
> while I split out the nontrivial parts of the large removal patch, most of
> it still is in one chunk that contains purely removals of whole lines.

Ok, I'll take care of this as well.

Thank you!

Bye,
    Oleg