From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:62620 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030329AbbKEIgg (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:36:36 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Hans Verkuil Cc: Linux Media Mailing List , y2038@lists.linaro.org, Junghak Sung Subject: Re: Which type to use for timestamps: u64 or s64? Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 09:36:24 +0100 Message-ID: <10717379.s8aWAKUxAs@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <563B0817.2060508@xs4all.nl> References: <563B0817.2060508@xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 05 November 2015 08:41:11 Hans Verkuil wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > We're redesigning the timestamp handling in the video4linux subsystem moving away > from struct timeval to a single timestamp in ns (what ktime_get_ns() gives us). > But I was wondering: ktime_get_ns() gives a s64, so should we use s64 as well as > the timestamp type we'll eventually be returning to the user, or should we use u64? > > The current patch series we made uses a u64, but I am now beginning to doubt that > decision. I would lean towards u64, but I don't think it really matters either way, especially since all the drivers should be using monotonic timestamps now. Arnd