Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 05 Oct 2001 13:44:20 +0100 | From | Padraig Brady <> | Subject | Re: Finegrained a/c/mtime was Re: Directory notification problem |
| |
Andi Kleen wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:15:04AM -0400, Alex Larsson wrote: > >>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? >> > >Near any CPU has a cycle counter builtin now, which gives you ns like >resolution. In theory you could still get collisions on MP systems, >but window is small enough that it can be ignored in practice. > >-Andi > But the point is you, only ever would want nano second resolution to make sure you notice all changes to a file. A more general (and much simpler) solution would be to gen_count++ every time a file's modified. What other applications would require better than second resolution on files?
Padraig.
- 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/
|  |