lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Finegrained a/c/mtime was Re: Directory notification problem
On 3 Oct 2001, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
>
> > structure reserved an additional 4 bytes for every timestamp, but these
> > either need to be used to give more seconds for the year 2038 problem
> > or be used for the ms fractions. y2038 is somewhat important too.
>
> The fields are meant for nanoseconds. The y2038 will definitely be
> solved by time-shifting or making time_t unsigned. In any way nothing
> of importance here and now. Especially since there won't be many
> systems which are running today and which have a 32-bit time_t be used
> then. For the rest I'm sure that in 37 years there will be the one or
> the other ABI change.

Is a nanoseconds field the right choice though? In reality you might not
have a nanosecond resolution timer, so you would miss changes that appear
on shorter timescale than the timer resolution. Wouldn't a generation
counter, increased when ctime was updated, be a better solution?

/ Alex


-
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 13:03    [W:0.226 / U:28.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site