On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 16:31 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 12:50 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 12:47 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 19:19 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 19:04 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 11:48 -0400, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:From: Thomas Haller <thaller redhat com>I pushed both patches to upstream branch mtl/wifi-ap-last-seen for easier review. And I added two fixup commits with changes I that I suggest. Thomasmaybe it would be better to expose the timestamp as singed int in libnm so that we can signal "unseen" by setting -1. G_MAXUINT32 is not very intuitive.I'd actually rather do '0' == unseen and keep it u32...why do you prefer that? '0' is a valid timestamp. IMO it should be overloaded with a 'never-seen' meaning.Well, technically yes, but you will never, ever get that value because scan results will never happen that quickly :) I was going to write a paragraph about why I wanted it u32, but in this case it doesn't matter since the max last-seen value will never be > 240 or so. So sure, lets just make everything s32 and use -1 as the "never seen" value. I fixed this up and squashed the branch. Look OK?
Pushed two fixups. With them it LGTM. Note that with gint32, we still have a range of 68 years (uptime of the system). No need to double that by using guint32. Thomas
DanThomasDanA gint32 is still large enough, unless you run your machine without reboot for 68+ years. There isn't a Year 2038 problem, because the counter starts at last boot, not in 1970. Thomas _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list gnome org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part