![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In article <20011013172419.B20499@kushida.jlokier.co.uk>, Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> writes: > Andi Kleen says we can ignore the risk; I disagree, as there are some > applications that cannot be trusted if the risk is plausible, and it can > be fixed easily. You're misquoting me badly. I said we can ignore the risk that two nanosecond resolution timestamps that get changed by two different cpus with out-of-sync cycle counter on a smp system and which are fast enough to free/aquire the inode lock in a smaller time than they're out of sync (= giving two file changes with the same ns timestamp) can be ignored. I implied on the systems that don't have a cycle counter and which use jiffie resolution gettimeofday it can be also ignored, because they're unlikely to be SMP and dying out too anyways. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||