On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 12:50 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 12:47 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 19:19 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 19:04 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 11:48 -0400, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
From: Thomas Haller thal...@redhat.com
I pushed both patches to upstream branch mtl/wifi-ap-last-seen for
easier review.
And I added two fixup commits with changes I that I suggest.
Thomas
maybe it would be better to expose the timestamp as singed int in libnm
so that we can signal unseen by setting -1. G_MAXUINT32 is not very
intuitive.
I'd actually rather do '0' == unseen and keep it u32...
why do you prefer that?
'0' is a valid timestamp. IMO it should be overloaded with a
'never-seen' meaning.
Well, technically yes, but you will never, ever get that value because
scan results will never happen that quickly :) I was going to write a
paragraph about why I wanted it u32, but in this case it doesn't matter
since the max last-seen value will never be 240 or so. So sure, lets
just make everything s32 and use -1 as the never seen value.
I fixed this up and squashed the branch. Look OK?
Dan
Thomas
Dan
A gint32 is still large enough, unless you run your machine without
reboot for 68+ years.
There isn't a Year 2038 problem, because the counter starts at last
boot, not in 1970.
Thomas
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
