On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:43:10PM -0700, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > 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). I kind of hate to have mount options that are required for nfs exports to work correctly; it soon makes things too complicated for users to realiably get right, so distributions end up setting them, and then we all end up taking the performance tradeoff anyway. But a mount-option-based version may at least be useful for further experiments. --b. -- 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
