From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Have xen dom0 still handle time of 1970 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:36:04 -0500 Message-ID: <45AE5E84.2080805@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Steven Rostedt , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Keir Fraser wrote: > On 17/1/07 16:30, "Steven Rostedt" wrote: > >> Have a box with Xen running more than a day? (I currently don't), and if >> you do, try the above date command. You'll see what I'm talking about. >> >> The example is bad, but I didn't have a machine to show that has been >> running a Xen kernel for more than an hour or two. > > Oh, I see. But it kind of feels silly to work around a synthetic correctness > test. If we make wc_sec implicitly signed (which is pretty gross) then we > lose 1 bit of magnitude which also isn't great -- I'd rather be able to > represent years 2038 through 2106 than 1902 through 1970. Isn't unsigned long 64 bits on 64 bit systems anyway? That would give us a lot more time... -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic.