Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:13:56 +0000 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: ac199@hwcn.org Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, joelh@gnu.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: proposal to not change time_t Message-ID: <199808192213.WAA00579@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:33:39 -0400." <Pine.BSF.3.96.980820003001.392B-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > Actually, I think it'd be fine to split the extra 32 bits in half. > > Use 16 bits to extend the range of time_t, and sixteen bits to > > increase the resolution of timestamps in the filesystem. > > Hmm... > > Is there any way the filesystem could force times to be separated > by at least one unit (255ths, 1024ths, whatever), and then only > resort to using duplicate times when it is forced to by benchmark > programs that touch 1024 files per second just for kicks? > > This would, I'm sure, be rather difficult to write actual code > for (and fs coders just abound), but... It could simply be defeated by finding another pathalogical example. Higher time resolution is the only way to fix it correctly. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808192213.WAA00579>