Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:59:23 +0200 | From | Matti Aarnio <> | Subject | Re: Question about stat() |
| |
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/
| |