On 3 Oct 2001, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
>
> > structure reserved an additional 4 bytes for every timestamp, but these
> > either need to be used to give more seconds for the year 2038 problem
> > or be used for the ms fractions. y2038 is somewhat important too.
>
> The fields are meant for nanoseconds. The y2038 will definitely be
> solved by time-shifting or making time_t unsigned. In any way nothing
> of importance here and now. Especially since there won't be many
> systems which are running today and which have a 32-bit time_t be used
> then. For the rest I'm sure that in 37 years there will be the one or
> the other ABI change.
Is a nanoseconds field the right choice though? In reality you might not
have a nanosecond resolution timer, so you would miss changes that appear
on shorter timescale than the timer resolution. Wouldn't a generation
counter, increased when ctime was updated, be a better solution?
/ Alex
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:27 EST