On Thursday 17 May 2007, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > Why not just store 64 bit nanoseconds? that would avoid the problem > > with ns overflow and the year-2038 bug. OTOH, that would require > > a 64 bit integer division when reading the data, so it gets you > > a runtime overhead. > > I like the idea. Do conversion function exist both way? > > What I don't get is the year-2038 bug. Isn't that the 31bit limit, > while 32bit would last to 2106? You're right, you don't hit the 2038 bug here, because you use an unsigned variable. The bug exists elsewhere because time_t tv_sec is signed. Just using nanoseconds probably doesn't gain you much after all then. You could however just have separate 32 bit fields in the inode for seconds and nanoseconds, that will result in the exact same layout that you have right now, but won't require a conversion function. Arnd <>< - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
