From: "James H. Cloos Jr." <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Paul Eggert <eggert@gnu.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6 nanosecond time stamp weirdness breaks GCC build
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 02:57:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3isgi4xsa.fsf@lugabout.jhcloos.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040402011411.GE28520@mail.shareable.org> (Jamie Lokier's message of "Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:14:11 +0100")
>>>>> "Jamie" == Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> writes:
Jamie> When re-reading an inode, rounding the time up is done by
Jamie> setting the tv_nsec field to 999999999.
Jamie> If the on-disk timestamp is "now", i.e. the current second if
Jamie> it's a 1-second resolution, then we can avoid setting the
Jamie> timestamp to a future time by setting the tv_nsec field to the
Jamie> current wall time's nanosecond value. There is no need to
Jamie> round the time up any more than that.
Given how much time it will take to compare the file's timestamp to
current before choosing 999999999 or now for the tv_nsec field, is
it a reasonable shortcut to just always use now's nsec value?
Obviously it is not *that* many cycles to do the compare, but we are
talking about a nanoseconds field, and the current tv_sec could
increment during the compare....
-JimC
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-02 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-01 19:28 Linux 2.6 nanosecond time stamp weirdness breaks GCC build Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-01 20:09 ` Andi Kleen
2004-04-01 20:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-04-01 20:46 ` Andi Kleen
2004-04-01 21:01 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-01 21:44 ` Andi Kleen
2004-04-01 22:39 ` Joe Buck
2004-04-01 22:44 ` Paul Jarc
2004-04-01 22:48 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-01 23:58 ` Joe Buck
2004-04-02 0:13 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-04-02 0:02 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 0:35 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-02 1:14 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 7:57 ` James H. Cloos Jr. [this message]
2004-04-02 9:22 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-02 16:23 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 20:45 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-02 21:07 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 21:56 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-03 4:59 ` Andrew Pimlott
2004-04-02 0:37 ` Andrew Morton
2004-06-07 16:03 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-01 21:13 ` Janis Johnson
2004-04-01 21:41 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-02 0:30 ` Alan Modra
2004-04-02 9:05 ` P
2004-04-02 17:27 ` Alexandre Oliva
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-04-01 20:51 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3isgi4xsa.fsf@lugabout.jhcloos.org \
--to=cloos@jhcloos.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=bug-coreutils@gnu.org \
--cc=eggert@gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.