From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Nanosecond fs timestamp support: sad Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:49:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20110722234921.GE10749@fieldses.org> References: <20110722163335.2df4f6ca@notabene.brown> <1311363269.14555.261.camel@calx> <20110722205922.GS8006@one.firstfloor.org> <1311369102.14555.268.camel@calx> <20110722214732.GW8006@one.firstfloor.org> <20110722221039.GB10749@fieldses.org> <20110722223158.GC10749@fieldses.org> <20110723085915.308ddc02@notabene.brown> <20110722230612.GD10749@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , Matt Mackall , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List To: NeilBrown Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:44448 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711Ab1GVXtZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:49:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110722230612.GD10749@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:06:12PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 08:59:15AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > But does anyone apart from NFSv4 actually *want* i_version as opposed to the > > more-generally-useful precise timestamps? > > It *seems* like a generally useful idea, but I don't know of any other > users. (Out of curiosity: what actually *needs* real timestamps?: - They're generally useful to people, of course; ("what did I change last tuesday?") - Make uses them, though in theory perhaps it could do the same job by caching records like "object X was built from versions a, b, and c of objects A, B, and C respectively". But a lot of uses are probably just to answer the question "did this file change since the last time I looked at it"? Of course, however theoretically useful, there's always the argument that linux-specific interfaces are unlikely to be used by anyone except Lennart Poettering.) --b.