Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:10:47 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Scott Mitchell <scott+freebsd@fishballoon.org> Subject: Re: /bin/ls sorting bug? Message-ID: <200406210910.aa18808@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:44:06 PDT." <20040621054406.GA927@VARK.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Sorting on nanoseconds too is likely to be more confusing than > useful. Even if we use one of the precious few option letters ls > doesn't use already to add a nanosecond display, most people won't > know about it because they don't care about nanoseconds. They > might care when they notice---as you did---that the sort order > isn't what they expected. At the moment in FreeBSD the nanoseconds field is always zero, unless you twiddle vfs.timestamp_precision, so it would make no difference to joe user. For people that do set vfs.timestamp_precision, it would be nice if ls did the right thing (for example, test already compares the nanoseconds field, after someone submitted a PR because it didn't). > Is the point of sorting on nanoseconds to totally order the files > based on modification time? Depending on the clock resolution (which is partially determined by vfs.timestamp_precision and partially determined by the actual clock resolution), it may not be enough to totally order the files. David.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406210910.aa18808>