[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [tip:perf/core] perf/x86: Add generic Intel uncore PMU support
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:10:23 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <> wrote:

> On 06/21/2012 03:51 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > What *is* significant is the effect of a signedness change upon
> > arithmetic, conversions, warnings, etc. And whether such a change
> > might actually introduce bugs.
> >
> >
> > Back away and ask the broader questions: why did ktime_t choose
> > unsigned? Is time a signed concept? What is the right thing to do
> > here, from a long-term design perspective?
> Time is definitely a signed concept -- it has no beginning or end (well,
> the Big Bang, but the __110 Myr or so uncertainty of the exact timing of
> the Big Bang makes it a horridly awkward choice for epoch.)
> Now, for some users of time you can inherently guarantee there will
> never be any references to time before a particular event, e.g. system
> boot, in which case an unsigned number might make sense, but as a whole
> I think using a signed type as time_t in nearly all Unix implementation
> was The Right Thing.

So why is ktime_t unsigned?

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-22 01:41    [W:0.130 / U:1.920 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site