Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:43:10 -0700 | | Subject | Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps | | From | "Patrick J. LoPresti" <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >> Is there any objection to the mount option I am proposing? > > I have none. I doubt I'd use it as it would be too expensive on system > performance for some of my boxes, while having an incrementing value is > cheap. > > I don't see the two as conflicting - in fact the bits you need to do the > mount option are the bits you also need to do the counter version as > well. One fixes ordering at no real cost, the other adds high res > timestamps, both are useful.
A mount option could also allow a choice of timestamp resolutions:
Traditional (i.e., fast) Alan Cox NFS hack (a tad slower but should fix NFS) High-res time (slowest but most accurate)
I will work on a patch this week (weekend at the latest).
Thanks, Alan.
- 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/
|  |