![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 08:59 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:24:29AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > Theodore Tso wrote:> > >Some of the ideas which have been tossed about include: > > >> > > * nanosecond timestamps, and support for time beyond the 2038> > > > The 2nd one is probably more urgent than the first. I can see a general > > benefit from timestamp in ms, beyond that seems to be a specialty > > requirement best provided at the application level rather than the bits > > of a trillion inodes which need no such thing.> > What's urgently needed for NFS (and I suspect for most other > applications demanding higher timestamps) isn't really nanosecond > precision so much as something that's guaranteed to increase whenever > the file changes. NFS doesn't necessarily require monotonicity either. The only real requirement that knfsd has is that the timestamp needs to change every time the file data (mtime+ctime) and/or metadata (ctime only) is changed. Applications like 'make' OTOH, probably would be happier if the timestamps are guaranteed to be monotonic. Cheers, Trond - 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: 2006-07-05 21:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||