Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Finegrained a/c/mtime was Re: Directory notification problem | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 13 Oct 2001 18:12:51 +0200 |
| |
In article <20011013172419.B20499@kushida.jlokier.co.uk>, Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> writes: > Andi Kleen says we can ignore the risk; I disagree, as there are some > applications that cannot be trusted if the risk is plausible, and it can > be fixed easily.
You're misquoting me badly. I said we can ignore the risk that two nanosecond resolution timestamps that get changed by two different cpus with out-of-sync cycle counter on a smp system and which are fast enough to free/aquire the inode lock in a smaller time than they're out of sync (= giving two file changes with the same ns timestamp) can be ignored. I implied on the systems that don't have a cycle counter and which use jiffie resolution gettimeofday it can be also ignored, because they're unlikely to be SMP and dying out too anyways.
-Andi
- 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/
|  |