On Nov 13, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 7:00 AM Viacheslav Dubeyko slava@dubeyko.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2019, at 12:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
- There are two time systems. Both are based on seconds since
- a particular time/date.
- Unix: unsigned lil-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970
- Unix: signed little-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970
- mac: unsigned big-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1904
- HFS implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
- traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
- time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
- under 2082844800U (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
*/ -#define __hfs_u_to_mtime(sec) cpu_to_be32(sec + 2082844800U - sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60) -#define __hfs_m_to_utime(sec) (be32_to_cpu(sec) - 2082844800U + sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60)
I believe it makes sense to introduce some constant instead of hardcoded value (2082844800U and 60). It will be easier to understand the code without necessity to take a look into the comments. What do you think?
Every other user of sys_tz.tz_minuteswest uses a plain '60', I think that one is easy enough to understand from context. Naming the other constant is a good idea, I've now folded the change below into my patch.
Thanks for the review!
Arnd8<----- diff --git a/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h b/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h index 26733051ee50..f71c384064c8 100644 --- a/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h +++ b/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h @@ -247,22 +247,24 @@ extern void hfs_mark_mdb_dirty(struct super_block *sb);
- HFS implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
- traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
- time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
- under 2082844800U (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
- under HFS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
*/ +#define HFS_UTC_OFFSET 2082844800U
static inline time64_t __hfs_m_to_utime(__be32 mt) {
time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - 2082844800U);
time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFS_UTC_OFFSET); return ut + sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60;}
static inline __be32 __hfs_u_to_mtime(time64_t ut) { ut -= sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60;
return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + 2082844800U);
return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + HFS_UTC_OFFSET);} #define HFS_I(inode) (container_of(inode, struct hfs_inode_info, vfs_inode)) #define HFS_SB(sb) ((struct hfs_sb_info *)(sb)->s_fs_info)
diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h index 22d0a22c41a3..3b03fff68543 100644 --- a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h +++ b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h @@ -538,20 +538,22 @@ int hfsplus_read_wrapper(struct super_block *sb);
- HFS+ implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
- traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
- time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
- under 2082844800U (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
- under HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
*/ +#define HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET 2082844800U
static inline time64_t __hfsp_mt2ut(__be32 mt) {
time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - 2082844800U);
time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET); return ut;}
static inline __be32 __hfsp_ut2mt(time64_t ut) {
return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + 2082844800U);
return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET);}
/* compatibility */ #define hfsp_mt2ut(t) (struct timespec64){ .tv_sec = __hfsp_mt2ut(t) }
Looks good for me. I like the patch.
Reviewed-by: Vyacheslav Dubeyko slava@dubeyko.com
Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko.