On 04/22/2013 11:12 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > I was thinking about the seconds component. I wondered the same thing. It will most likely have to some time in the next 25 years or so. -Alex > ----- "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 > > -- 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
