On Saturday 31 May 2014 10:39:02 Andreas Schwab wrote: > Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> writes: > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > >> + * The variant using bit fields is less efficient to access, but > >> + * small and has a wider range as the 32-bit one, plus it keeps > >> + * the signedness of the original timespec. > >> + */ > >> +struct inode_time { > >> + long long tv_sec : 34; > >> + int tv_nsec : 30; > >> +}; > > > > Don't you need 31 bits for tv_nsec, to accommodate for the sign bit? > > I know you won't really store negative numbers there, but storing a large > > positive number will become negative on read out, won't it? > > Only if the int bitfield is signed. Bitfields are weird, aren't they?
It was a mistake on my side, as I didn't know about that rule and meant write 'unsigned int' really. Also, I always have a bad feeling about using bitfields in general. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/