[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FE3A9DF.20303@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:10:23 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
zheng.z.yan@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] perf/x86: Add generic Intel uncore PMU support
On 06/21/2012 03:51 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> What *is* significant is the effect of a signedness change upon
> arithmetic, conversions, warnings, etc. And whether such a change
> might actually introduce bugs.
>
>
> Back away and ask the broader questions: why did ktime_t choose
> unsigned? Is time a signed concept? What is the right thing to do
> here, from a long-term design perspective?
Time is definitely a signed concept -- it has no beginning or end (well,
the Big Bang, but the ±110 Myr or so uncertainty of the exact timing of
the Big Bang makes it a horridly awkward choice for epoch.)
Now, for some users of time you can inherently guarantee there will
never be any references to time before a particular event, e.g. system
boot, in which case an unsigned number might make sense, but as a whole
I think using a signed type as time_t in nearly all Unix implementation
was The Right Thing.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists