> > If there's no clear users and workloads depending on this other than for > > the sake of NFS then we shouldn't expose this to userspace. We've tried > > Some NFS servers run in userspace, and they would a "clear user" of this > functionality. See my comment above. We did thist mostly for the sake of NFS as there was in itself nothing wrong with timestamps that needed urgent fixing. The end result has been that we caused a regression for four other major filesystems when they were switched to fine-grained timestamps. So NFS servers in userspace isn't a sufficient argument to just try again with a slightly tweaked solution but without a wholesale fix of the actual ordering problem. The bar to merge this will naturally be higher the second time around. That's orthogonal to improving the general timestamp infrastructure in struct inode ofc.
