Andi Kleen wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:15:04AM -0400, Alex Larsson wrote:
>
>>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?
>>
>
>Near any CPU has a cycle counter builtin now, which gives you ns like
>resolution. In theory you could still get collisions on MP systems,
>but window is small enough that it can be ignored in practice.
>
>-Andi
>
But the point is you, only ever would want nano second resolution to make
sure you notice all changes to a file. A more general (and much simpler)
solution would be to gen_count++ every time a file's modified. What other
applications would require better than second resolution on files?
Padraig.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:36 EST