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

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Andreas,

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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? :-)

"int" is signed, right? Or do you mean a bitfield needs an explicit "signed"
keyword to be signed?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/