Re: [PATCH 1/2] core: add nm_utils_monotonic_timestamp_as_boottime() function

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 00:41 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > maybe 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.

Looks good.

What do you think about 1.0.2 for this branch?

Dan


> Thomas
>
> > Dan
> >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > > A 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