Re: [tip:perf/core] perf/x86: Add generic Intel uncore PMU support

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 06/21/2012 03:51 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> What *is* significant is the effect of a signedness change upon
> arithmetic, conversions, warnings, etc.  And whether such a change
> might actually introduce bugs.
> 
> 
> Back away and ask the broader questions: why did ktime_t choose
> unsigned?  Is time a signed concept?  What is the right thing to do
> here, from a long-term design perspective?

Time is definitely a signed concept -- it has no beginning or end (well,
the Big Bang, but the ±110 Myr or so uncertainty of the exact timing of
the Big Bang makes it a horridly awkward choice for epoch.)

Now, for some users of time you can inherently guarantee there will
never be any references to time before a particular event, e.g. system
boot, in which case an unsigned number might make sense, but as a whole
I think using a signed type as time_t in nearly all Unix implementation
was The Right Thing.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/