From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Matt W. Benjamin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] libceph: validate timespec conversions Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2011602102.65.1366647123451.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from aa.linuxbox.com ([69.128.83.226]:1491 "EHLO aa.linuxbox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752645Ab3DVQMI (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:12:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: Alex Elder , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org I was thinking about the seconds component. ----- "Sage Weil" wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > > > > ----- "Alex Elder" wrote: > > > > > A ceph timespec contains 32-bit unsigned values for its seconds > and > > > nanoseconds components. For a standard timespec, both fields are > > > signed, and the seconds field is almost surely 64 bits. > > > > Is the Ceph timespec going to change at some point? > > I don't think so. 32-bits is enough for the billion nanoseconds in a > > second. And I'm not sure if the signedness is used/useful... the ceph > > utime_t code always normalizes the ns result to be in [0, 1 billion). > > sage -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309