On Thursday 05 November 2015 10:05:44 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 11/05/15 09:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 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.
>
> One thing that might be easier if it is a s64 is when adding/subtracting
> offsets
> from the timestamp. And the other reason is that a u64 gives a false view of
> the
> underlying type. With a s64 it is clear that a timestamp will wrap around
> after
> 292 years instead of double that. Admittedly, not our problem, but if we ever
> send
> a space probe to Alpha Centauri, then it might be nice to know as application
> developer that you need to take special measures if the mission takes longer
> than
> 292 years
There is another problem here if you are worried about the overflow: Unsigned
overflow is well-defined in C, i.e. (U64_MAX + 1) is known to be 0. However,
signed overflow is not defined in C for historic reasons, so taking the
result of (S64_MAX + 1) can have arbitrary results [1], including a kernel
oops, or random other things not related to the variable that carries the
result, if gcc decides that 'this cannot happen'.
Arnd
[1]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3948479/integer-overflow-and-undefined-behavior
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
