Re: [RFC 01/32] fs: introduce new 'struct inode_time'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Arnd,

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> 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       tv_sec  : 34;
> +       int             tv_nsec : 30;
> +};

Don't you need 31 bits for tv_nsec, to accommodate for the sign bit?
I know you won't really store negative numbers there, but storing a large
positive number will become negative on read out, won't it?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux