On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2014 10:39:02 Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
>>
>> > Hi Arnd,
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >> + * The variant using bit fields is less efficient to access, but
>
Yes, s64/u32 or s64/s32.
On May 31, 2014 7:53:01 AM PDT, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>On Saturday 31 May 2014 02:03:38 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/30/2014 01:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NEW_INODE_TIME
>> > +/*
>> > + * This is the type we use internally in the kernel to represent
On Saturday 31 May 2014 10:39:02 Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
>
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann 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
On Saturday 31 May 2014 02:03:38 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 01:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NEW_INODE_TIME
> > +/*
> > + * This is the type we use internally in the kernel to represent
> > + * absolute times in file system metadata.
> > + * This structure must not leak
Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
> "int" is signed, right? Or do you mean a bitfield needs an explicit "signed"
> keyword to be signed?
Yes, see 6.7.2#5.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something
Hi Andreas,
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
>
>> Hi Arnd,
>>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> + * The variant using bit fields is less efficient to access, but
>>> + * small and has a wider range as the 32-bit one
On 05/30/2014 01:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NEW_INODE_TIME
> +/*
> + * This is the type we use internally in the kernel to represent
> + * absolute times in file system metadata.
> + * This structure must not leak out to user space, and new interfaces
> + * should be using 64-bit
Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann 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.
>> + */
>> +st
Hi Arnd,
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann 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
9 matches
Mail list logo
