[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2tx86l4ux.fsf@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 10:39:02 +0200
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/32] fs: introduce new 'struct inode_time'
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> writes:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> 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?
Only if the int bitfield is signed. Bitfields are weird, aren't they? :-)
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@...ux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
--
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