From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  2 Jun 2013 22:28:33 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <53268623235cb5f47b2404f75532917c@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <9fd46f174ab35243e649a8cec6705de6@gmx.de>
References: <9fd46f174ab35243e649a8cec6705de6@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] gmtime() ulong
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6088aa18-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> on the topic, i thought about how to handle the 2038 problem
> in general with 9p which uses unsigned 32bit integers for atime
> and mtime fields.

on the one hand one could just expect long to be always 64-bits
by 2038.  but that seems timid.

i'd rather see the time base switched to nanoseconds.  then the bother
of the switch  might benefit us while we still use the system.  :-)  2038
is still 25 years off.

a more pressing worry for me is the fact that haswell chipsets, and
newer atom motherboards only support xhci.

- erik