Re: Question about stat()

From: Alex Buell (alex.buell@tahallah.demon.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2000 - 15:23:39 EST

Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: alpha update for 2.3.47-6"
Previous message: Ari Pollak: "2.3.47-7 binary support messed up?"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Question about stat()"
Next in thread: Matti Aarnio: "Re: Question about stat()"
Reply: Matti Aarnio: "Re: Question about stat()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

> > We could do with a much more precise time_t structure for the future,
> > methinks.

> How about 64-bit nanoseconds? This fixes the year-2038 problem too.
> (this is for the VFS and new filesystems)

How about calling the new struct 'time_t64', it could be a long long
containing nanoseconds.

Thus existing code won't break.

Cheers,
Alex

-- Signatures suck.

http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: alpha update for 2.3.47-6"
Previous message: Ari Pollak: "2.3.47-7 binary support messed up?"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Question about stat()"
Next in thread: Matti Aarnio: "Re: Question about stat()"
Reply: Matti Aarnio: "Re: Question about stat()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:25 EST