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

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Saturday 31 May 2014 10:39:02 Andreas Schwab 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? 

It was a mistake on my side, as I didn't know about that rule and
meant write 'unsigned int' really. Also, I always have a bad feeling
about using bitfields in general.

	Arnd
--
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/