Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:34:58 -0700 | | Subject | Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps | | From | "Patrick J. LoPresti" <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> if (time_now == time_last) > return { time_last , ++ct }; > else { > ct = 0; > time_last = time_now > return { time_last , 0 }; > } > > providing it is done with the same 'ct' across the fs and you can't do > enough ops/second to wrap the nanosecs - which should be fine for now, > your ordering is still safe is it not ?
Yes, that would work. Assuming you use atomic counters, else there is a risk of the visible time ticking backwards. It seems like a lot of effort just to avoid having accurate timestamps on your files, though.
I am having trouble seeing why this is a better idea than a simple mount option to obtain decent resolution timestamps. (Not that we can't have both...) Is there any objection to the mount option I am proposing?
For the Nth time, I am willing to produce and test the patch, but not if there is zero chance of it being accepted.
- Pat -- 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/
|  |