From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: [RFC 01/32] fs: introduce new 'struct inode_time' Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 10:39:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1401480116-1973111-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1401480116-1973111-2-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Arnd Bergmann , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-Arch , "Joseph S. Myers" , John Stultz , Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Gleixner , Ley Foon Tan , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux FS Devel To: Geert Uytterhoeven Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Geert Uytterhoeven's message of "Sat, 31 May 2014 09:56:29 +0200") Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Geert Uytterhoeven writes: > Hi Arnd, > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> + * The variant using bit fields is less efficient to access, but >> + * small and has a wider range as the 32-bit one, plus it keeps >> + * the signedness of the original timespec. >> + */ >> +struct inode_time { >> + long long tv_sec : 34; >> + int tv_nsec : 30; >> +}; > > Don't you need 31 bits for tv_nsec, to accommodate for the sign bit? > I know you won't really store negative numbers there, but storing a large > positive number will become negative on read out, won't it? Only if the int bitfield is signed. Bitfields are weird, aren't they? :-) Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."