Re: [RFC 01/32] fs: introduce new 'struct inode_time'

[Andreas Schwab]

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/