Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:49:28 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Change default VFS timestamp precision? Message-ID: <82507.1419018568@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <20141219194800.GA29107@stack.nl> References: <201412161348.41219.jhb@freebsd.org> <77322.1418933100@critter.freebsd.dk> <77371.1418933642@critter.freebsd.dk> <7567696.mqJ3jgzJgL@ralph.baldwin.cx> <82135.1419010861@critter.freebsd.dk> <20141219194800.GA29107@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <20141219194800.GA29107@stack.nl>, Jilles Tjoelker writes: >On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 05:41:01PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <7567696.mqJ3jgzJgL@ralph.baldwin.cx>, John Baldwin writes: > >> >Yes, and multiplication is cheaper than division. It's not a power of >> >two (so more than a single bitshift), but possibly in the noise compared >> >to the work in bintime() itself. > >> But why not use nanosecond resolution given that the cost is cheaper ? > >Because there is no API to set timestamps with nanosecond resolution, >and therefore a cp -p copy of a file will appear older than the original >with 99.9% probability. I think that is undesirable. Hmm, good point, I forgot about that screwup... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?82507.1419018568>