[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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:


    to make it clearly separate.

    > Cheers,
    > Alex
    > --
    > Signatures suck.

    So they do, thus my "signature" is *always* manual - and small..

    /Matti Aarnio <>

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.018 / U:146.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site