Also, without using the time(2) call, how would we write the timestamp of the index to the file as Linus suggests? I'm guessing we'd write it, then read its mtime, and the write it again (just the part storing the timestamp), but that seems inelegant. In addition, the second write may happen in the next second and you'll get an mtime different to that in the file, though that shouldn't matter. -Ben On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Ben Lynn <benlynn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That is problematic. How do I figure out what the filesystem thinks is > the current time? I could touch some file and read its mtime, but I > want a shortcut. > > Are there any guarantees of any kind? e.g. is the filesystem current > time at least never ahead of the system time? > > -Ben > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> "Ben Lynn" <benlynn@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> ... I'm making the same >>> assumptions, i.e. files are not touched while they're being indexed. >> >> Actually you are making another assumption that is somewhat worrysome. >> >> The filesystem clock and time(2) clock can be skewed and comparing a >> timestamp you obtain from lstat(2) and time(2) might not give you any >> meaningful information. That is why I made this codepath without using >> time(2) when I did the racy-git work. >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
