![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andi Kleen wrote: >On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:15:04AM -0400, Alex Larsson wrote: >>>Is a nanoseconds field the right choice though? In reality you might not >>have a nanosecond resolution timer, so you would miss changes that appear >>on shorter timescale than the timer resolution. Wouldn't a generation >>counter, increased when ctime was updated, be a better solution? >>>>Near any CPU has a cycle counter builtin now, which gives you ns like >resolution. In theory you could still get collisions on MP systems, >but window is small enough that it can be ignored in practice. >>-Andi> But the point is you, only ever would want nano second resolution to make sure you notice all changes to a file. A more general (and much simpler) solution would be to gen_count++ every time a file's modified. What other applications would require better than second resolution on files? Padraig. - 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 13:04 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||