Re: The return of the return of crunch time (2.5 merge candidate list 1.6)

Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:44:28 -0500


Hi!

> The point of my patchkit is to allow the file systems
> who support better resolution to handle it properly. Other filesystems
> are not worse than before when they flush inodes (and better off when
> they keep everything in ram for your build because then they will enjoy
> full time resolution)

What about always rounding down even when inode is
in memory? That is both simple and consistent.

> If you really wanted that I would recommend to change make.
> When all nanosecond parts are 0 it is reasonable for make to assume that
> the fs doesn't support finegrained resolution. But I'm not sure it's
> worth it.

Thats really ugly heuristics. What about filling
nanosecond part with ~0 when unavailable?

Psvel
-
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/