![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sep 24, 2002 00:35 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote: > The behaviour does seem wrong. Resolution should not be faked to be > more accurate than the granularity offered by the underlying file > system. Timestamps can be persistently stored, or stored for longer > periods of times, for all sorts of reasons beyond 'make', each with > consequence that cannot be determined here. > > What would it take to get microsecond or better time stored in ext[23]? Not very much. We have been thinking about this for a while already. The microsecond-resolution times would be stored in a "large inode" or in an extended attribute if the inode is a regular-sized one. The latter would be a pretty big performance hit for most applications if it were only the u-second data that were being stored in the EA space. We are also looking at a better method of storing the EA data so that it is more efficient than the current EA implementation, but that is mostly tangential to your concerns. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ - 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 12:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||