Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:15:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:14:53 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([199.183.24.200]:28658 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:14:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:15:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Larsson X-X-Sender: To: Ulrich Drepper cc: Andi Kleen , Subject: Re: Finegrained a/c/mtime was Re: Directory notification problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3 Oct 2001, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Andi Kleen writes: > > > structure reserved an additional 4 bytes for every timestamp, but these > > either need to be used to give more seconds for the year 2038 problem > > or be used for the ms fractions. y2038 is somewhat important too. > > The fields are meant for nanoseconds. The y2038 will definitely be > solved by time-shifting or making time_t unsigned. In any way nothing > of importance here and now. Especially since there won't be many > systems which are running today and which have a 32-bit time_t be used > then. For the rest I'm sure that in 37 years there will be the one or > the other ABI change. Is a nanoseconds field the right choice though? In reality you might not have a nanosecond resolution timer, so you would miss changes that appear on shorter timescale than the timer resolution. Wouldn't a generation counter, increased when ctime was updated, be a better solution? / Alex - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/