On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400 Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> b) the granularity > > > > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides. > > So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp > granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the > draft strongly discourage > sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g. > don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than > trailing-zero-padding a > larger than needed number) Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient? I had some kind of variable-length scheme that encoded the granularity in the 'unused' bits of the value for coarser granularities, but I'm pretty sure that only saved space for the *TimeRes types, and doesn't really help for 'plain' times. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
