On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:23:39PM +0000, Alex Buell wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > > We could do with a much more precise time_t structure for the future,
> > > methinks.
>
> > How about 64-bit nanoseconds? This fixes the year-2038 problem too.
> > (this is for the VFS and new filesystems)
>
> How about calling the new struct 'time_t64', it could be a long long
> containing nanoseconds.
>
> Thus existing code won't break.
Amicable goal, however I do suggest that programmer mindset is
that "time_t*" is time with ONE SECOND resolution.
If you want to create a new type, call it, say:
nanotime64_t
to make it clearly separate.
> Cheers,
> Alex
> --
> Signatures suck.
>
> http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk
So they do, thus my "signature" is *always* manual - and small..
/Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@sonera.fi>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:25 EST