On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
