Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:15:04 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alex Larsson <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |