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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox