On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 02:34 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 20.10.15 at 10:10, <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > Personally I've never taken the time to familiarize myself with the > > magnitude of hex numbers vs decimal numbers; so in the case of > > time, I > > could easily see that 10000000 nanoseconds is about 1ms; but I > > don't > > have a good sense of how long 0x1000000 nanoseconds is. The fact > > that > > our times are based on base 10 instead of base 2 is I think as good > > an > > argument as any for leaving it as a decimal. > Yep, for time, I personally prefer decimal too. > Well, as long as the number of seconds the value represents is small, > this indeed is a good argument for using dec. However, already > when we get into the hour range we're talking about 12-digit values > without any separators, and at least for me this means counting > from either end to find a place where to put a mental separator. So > if staying with dec, perhaps we should make these second based, > i.e. <ssss>.<nnnnnnnnn>? > This would be really useful, and I'd be fine with scheduling related PRI_stime to look like this. I think I really like it, actually. It's what we do already for console timestamps, in case "=boot" is specified, isn't it? Thanks and Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
