[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=BB-zVFyCLgC+RWai9FFecaOad=pUC2=XFnY3J@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:43:10 -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 12:54 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> Is there any objection to the mount option I am proposing?
>
> I have none. I doubt I'd use it as it would be too expensive on system
> performance for some of my boxes, while having an incrementing value is
> cheap.
>
> I don't see the two as conflicting - in fact the bits you need to do the
> mount option are the bits you also need to do the counter version as
> well. One fixes ordering at no real cost, the other adds high res
> timestamps, both are useful.
A mount option could also allow a choice of timestamp resolutions:
Traditional (i.e., fast)
Alan Cox NFS hack (a tad slower but should fix NFS)
High-res time (slowest but most accurate)
I will work on a patch this week (weekend at the latest).
Thanks, Alan.
- 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