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

> Andi Kleen <> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.115 / U:2.852 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site