If we don't care to warn about the timestamps that are clamped in
memory, maybe we could just warn when they are being written out.
Would something like this be more acceptable? I would also remove the
warning in ext4.h. I think we don't have to check if the inode is 128
bytes here (Please correct me if I am wrong). If this looks ok, I can
post this.
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
index 9e3ae3be3de9..24b14bd3feab 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
+++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
@@ -833,10 +833,8 @@ do {
\
(raw_inode)->xtime ## _extra =
\
ext4_encode_extra_time(&(inode)->xtime); \
}
\
- else {\
+ else \
(raw_inode)->xtime = cpu_to_le32(clamp_t(int32_t,
(inode)->xtime.tv_sec, S32_MIN, S32_MAX)); \
- ext4_warning_inode(inode, "inode does not support
timestamps beyond 2038"); \
- } \
} while (0)
#define EXT4_EINODE_SET_XTIME(xtime, einode, raw_inode)
\
diff --git a/fs/ext4/xattr.c b/fs/ext4/xattr.c
index 491f9ee4040e..cef5b87cc5a6 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/xattr.c
@@ -2791,7 +2791,7 @@ int ext4_expand_extra_isize_ea(struct inode
*inode, int new_extra_isize,
cleanup:
if (error && (mnt_count != le16_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_mnt_count))) {
- ext4_warning(inode->i_sb, "Unable to expand inode %lu.
Delete some EAs or run e2fsck.",
+ ext4_warning(inode->i_sb, "Unable to expand inode %lu.
Delete some EAs or run e2fsck. Timestamps on the inode expire beyond
2038",
inode->i_ino);
mnt_count = le16_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_mnt_count);
}
