On Mon, Sep 30 2024 at 15:27, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 2024-09-30 at 21:13 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> So if that's the intended behaviour then the changelog is misleading at >> best. > > That is the intended behavior and I'll plan to fix the changelog to > clarify this point: > > If someone jumps the realtime clock backward by a large value, then the > realtime timestamp _can_ appear to go backward. This is a problem today > even without this patchset. Correct. > If two files get stamped and a realtime clock jump backward happens in > between them, all bets are off as to which one will appear to have been > modified first. I don't think that is something we can reasonably > prevent, since we must stamp files according to the realtime clock. True. I just was utterly confused about the changelog. > The main thing I'm trying to prevent is the timestamps being misordered > in the absence of such a clock jump. Without tracking the floor as I am > here, that's a possibility. Correct.
