On Saturday 31 May 2014 10:39:02 Andreas Schwab wrote:

Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hi Arnd,

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+ * 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? 

It was a mistake on my side, as I didn't know about that rule and
meant write 'unsigned int' really. Also, I always have a bad feeling
about using bitfields in general.

	Arnd