On 06/04/2014 12:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> For other timekeeping stuff in the kernel, I agree that using some
> 64-bit representation (nanoseconds, 32/32 unsigned seconds/nanoseconds,
> ...) has advantages, that's exactly the point I was making earlier
> against simply extending the internal
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 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
