[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:0.075 / U:7.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site