[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=sOW0Cgci+xX6rRmz+B-is0xb8DoKD350bFJN1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:34:58 -0700
From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> if (time_now == time_last)
> return { time_last , ++ct };
> else {
> ct = 0;
> time_last = time_now
> return { time_last , 0 };
> }
>
> providing it is done with the same 'ct' across the fs and you can't do
> enough ops/second to wrap the nanosecs - which should be fine for now,
> your ordering is still safe is it not ?
Yes, that would work. Assuming you use atomic counters, else there
is a risk of the visible time ticking backwards. It seems like a lot
of effort just to avoid having accurate timestamps on your files,
though.
I am having trouble seeing why this is a better idea than a simple
mount option to obtain decent resolution timestamps. (Not that we
can't have both...) Is there any objection to the mount option I am
proposing?
For the Nth time, I am willing to produce and test the patch, but not
if there is zero chance of it being accepted.
- Pat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists