On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
