Re: [tip:timers/urgent] ktime: Get rid of the union

[Frederic Weisbecker]

2017-01-04 10:39 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:12AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> > > Get rid of the union and just keep ktime_t as simple typedef of type s64.
>> >
>> > All good stuff. One question that remains is why keep the type while
>> > removing the cycles_t type?
>>
>> That would have been a massive surgery which I was not able to pull off on
>> top of the other changes.
>
> And the reason ktime needs be s64 is because 0 is at boot, and we need
> to represent time before boot, right? Might want to stick that in a
> comment somewhere near that typedef, so I don't keep asking this ;-)

Aaah, that confused me as well :-)