C: struct timespec library
You need to #include &lt;time.h&gt; for struct timespec to be defined.

Why are NS_PER_SECOND and MAX_NS enum members?  There's no advantage compared to plain old const long.  I'm not sure why we need two constants anyway; the code that uses MAX_NS is simplified if we use NS_PER_SECOND instead:
long total_ns   = t1.tv_nsec + t2.tv_nsec;
time_t total_s  = t1.tv_sec  + t2.tv_sec;

while (total_ns &gt;= NS_PER_SECOND) {
    total_ns -= NS_PER_SECOND;
    ++total_s;
}

(Note the use of the correct types in this version).

I think this logic is wrong:
if (t.tv_sec &gt; 0 &amp;&amp; t.tv_nsec &lt; 0) {
    t.tv_nsec += NS_PER_SECOND;
    t.tv_sec--;
} else if (t.tv_sec &lt; 0 &amp;&amp; t.tv_nsec &gt; 0) {
    t.tv_nsec -= NS_PER_SECOND;
    t.tv_sec++;
}

I'm reasonably sure that tv_nsec should always be positive, even when tv_sec is negative.  So we can simplify that to just:
if (t.tv_nsec &lt; 0) {
    t.tv_nsec += NS_PER_SECOND;
    t.tv_sec--;
}

Note that the logic in timespec_add() already assumes positive tv_nsec.

This is highly susceptible to overflow:
unsigned int total_ns = t.tv_nsec + (t.tv_sec * (MAX_NS+1));

The whole reason we have struct timespec is that we might need to represent values outside the range of the integer types.  Probably better to use divmod to divide tv_nsec by n, and add the remainder to nsec before dividing - we need to be very careful here to avoid overflow.  Again, an unsigned type is inconsistent with other code.
Modified code
Here's my version of these functions:
#include &lt;time.h&gt;

const long NS_PER_SECOND = 1000000000L;

struct timespec timespec_sub(const struct timespec t1, const struct timespec t2)
{
    struct timespec t;

    t.tv_nsec = t2.tv_nsec - t1.tv_nsec;
    t.tv_sec  = t2.tv_sec - t1.tv_sec;

    if (t.tv_nsec &lt; 0) {
        t.tv_nsec += NS_PER_SECOND;
        t.tv_sec--;
    }
    return t;
}

struct timespec timespec_add(const struct timespec t1, const struct timespec t2)
{
    struct timespec t = { t1.tv_sec + t2.tv_sec, t1.tv_nsec + t2.tv_nsec };
    if (t.tv_nsec &gt;= NS_PER_SECOND) {
        t.tv_nsec -= NS_PER_SECOND;
        t.tv_sec++;
    }
    return t;
}

struct timespec timespec_divide(struct timespec t, const int n)
{
    time_t remainder_secs = t.tv_sec % n;
    t.tv_sec /= n;
    t.tv_nsec /= n;
    t.tv_nsec +=
        remainder_secs * (NS_PER_SECOND / n) +
        remainder_secs * (NS_PER_SECOND % n) / n;

    while (t.tv_nsec &gt;= NS_PER_SECOND) {
        t.tv_nsec -= NS_PER_SECOND;
        t.tv_sec++;
    }
    return t;
}

And a primitive unit-test:
int main(void)
{
    const struct timespec a = { 1, 905234817 };
    struct timespec a_2 = timespec_add(a, a);
    struct timespec a_4 = timespec_add(a_2, a_2);
    struct timespec a_5 = timespec_add(a_4, a);
    struct timespec z = timespec_sub(a, timespec_divide(a_5, 5));
    return z.tv_sec || z.tv_nsec;
}

You should expand on the testing, to prove correctness for the tricky cases where overflow could happen.

Further simplification
We can separate out the code to normalise out-of-range nanoseconds into its own function:
struct timespec timespec_normalise(struct timespec t)
{
    t.tv_sec += t.tv_nsec / NS_PER_SECOND;
    if ((t.tv_nsec %= NS_PER_SECOND) &lt; 0) {
        /* division rounds towards zero, since C99 */
        t.tv_nsec += NS_PER_SECOND;
        --t.tv_sec;
    }
    return t;
}

Then the functions can use that, to make them shorter and simpler:
struct timespec timespec_sub(const struct timespec t1, const struct timespec t2)
{
    struct timespec t = { t2.tv_nsec - t1.tv_nsec, t2.tv_sec - t1.tv_sec };
    return timespec_normalise(t);
}

struct timespec timespec_add(const struct timespec t1, const struct timespec t2)
{
    struct timespec t = { t1.tv_sec + t2.tv_sec, t1.tv_nsec + t2.tv_nsec };
    return timespec_normalise(t);
}

struct timespec timespec_divide(struct timespec t, const int n)
{
    time_t remainder_secs = t.tv_sec % n;
    t.tv_sec /= n;
    t.tv_nsec /= n;
    t.tv_nsec +=
        remainder_secs * (NS_PER_SECOND / n) +
        remainder_secs * (NS_PER_SECOND % n) / n;
    return timespec_normalise(t);
}

Because we have the unit tests, we have high confidence that we haven't affected the functionality here.