On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Ok. Sorry about missing linux-api, I confused it with linux-arch, which
> may not be as relevant here, except for the one question whether we
> actually want to have the new ABI on all 32-bit architectures or only
> as an opt-in for those that expect to s
Typically they are using 64-bit signed seconds.
On May 31, 2014 11:22:37 AM PDT, Richard Cochran
wrote:
>On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> It's an approximation:
>
>(Approximately never ;)
>
>> with 64-bit timestamps, you can represent close to 300 billion
>>
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
>pointed this way, but there may be other opinions.
The syscall changes seem like the sort of thing I'd expect, although
patches adding new syscalls or otherwise affecting the kernel
On Monday 02 June 2014 13:52:19 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
> >pointed this way, but there may be other opinions.
>
> The syscall changes seem like the sort of thing I'd expect, alth
On 06/02/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2014 13:52:19 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>> a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
>>>pointed this way, but there may be other opinions.
>>
>> The syscall cha
On 06/02/2014 12:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> The bit that is really going to hurt is every single ioctl that uses a
>> timespec.
>>
>> Honestly, though, I really don't understand the point with "struct
>> inode_time". It seems like the zeroeth-order thing is to change the
>> kernel internal
On Monday 02 June 2014 12:26:22 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 02 June 2014 13:52:19 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>
> >>> a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion
> >>>pointe
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:34:12PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Typically they are using 64-bit signed seconds.
Okay, that is what I wanted to know.
Thanks,
Richard
--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Boo
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2014 16:51:15 Richard Cochran wrote:
> >
> > Why are some of the time stamp expiration dates marked as "never"?
>
> It's an approximation:
Also, the term "never" might mean using arbitrarily long integers
as in A
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2014 16:51:15 Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > I picked this because it is a fairly isolated problem, as the
>> > inode time stamps are rarely assigned to any oth
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 05:23:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> It's an approximation:
(Approximately never ;)
> with 64-bit timestamps, you can represent close to 300 billion
> years, which is way past the time that our planet can sustain
> life of any form[1].
Did you mean mean 64 bits wor
11 matches
Mail list logo
