On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > I was thinking about the seconds component. Oh, right.. that's the unix epoch(alypse) in 2038 or something? That we should probably fix. :) s > > ----- "Sage Weil" <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > > > > > > ----- "Alex Elder" <elder@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > A ceph timespec contains 32-bit unsigned values for its seconds > > and > > > > nanoseconds components. For a standard timespec, both fields are > > > > signed, and the seconds field is almost surely 64 bits. > > > > > > Is the Ceph timespec going to change at some point? > > > > I don't think so. 32-bits is enough for the billion nanoseconds in a > > > > second. And I'm not sure if the signedness is used/useful... the ceph > > > > utime_t code always normalizes the ns result to be in [0, 1 billion). > > > > sage > > > -- > Matt Benjamin > The Linux Box > 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 > Ann Arbor, MI 48104 > > http://linuxbox.com > > tel. 734-761-4689 > fax. 734-769-8938 > cel. 734-216-5309 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
