Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

["Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

>        if (time_now == time_last)
>                return { time_last , ++ct };
>        else {
>                ct = 0;
>                time_last = time_now
>                return { time_last , 0 };
>        }
>
> providing it is done with the same 'ct' across the fs and you can't do
> enough ops/second to wrap the nanosecs - which should be fine for now,
> your ordering is still safe is it not ?

Yes, that would work.   Assuming you use atomic counters, else there
is a risk of the visible time ticking backwards.  It seems like a lot
of effort just to avoid having accurate timestamps on your files,
though.

I am having trouble seeing why this is a better idea than a simple
mount option to obtain decent resolution timestamps.  (Not that we
can't have both...)  Is there any objection to the mount option I am
proposing?

For the Nth time, I am willing to produce and test the patch, but not
if there is zero chance of it being accepted.

 - Pat