Re: [PATCH 86/87] fs: switch timespec64 fields in inode to discrete integers
Steve French <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs,gmane.linux.uml.devel,gmane.linux.usb.general,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.comp.file-systems.nilfs.user,gmane.comp.file-systems.coda.general,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general,gmane.linux.file-systems.ntfs.devel,gmane.linux.file-systems.f2fs,gmane.linux.kernel.efi,gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel,gmane.linux.drivers.mtd,gmane.linux.drivers.rdma,gmane.linux.kernel.autofs,gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel,gmane.linux.nfs,gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4,gmane.network.samba.internals,gmane.linux.network,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.kernel.bpf,gmane.linux.file-systems.union,gmane.linux.serial,gmane.linux.kernel.cifs,gmane.comp.security.apparmor,gmane.linux.kernel.lsm,gmane.linux.hardware.karma.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAH2r5ms14hPaz=Ex2a=Dj0Hz3XxYLRKFj_rHHekznTbNJ_wABQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:06 AM David Howells via samba-technical <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Correct. We'd lose some fidelity in currently stored timestamps, but as > > Linus and Ted pointed out, anything below ~100ns granularity is > > effectively just noise, as that's the floor overhead for calling into > > the kernel. It's hard to argue that any application needs that sort of > > timestamp resolution, at least with contemporary hardware. > > Albeit with the danger of making Steve French very happy;-), would it make > sense to switch internally to Microsoft-style 64-bit timestamps with their > 100ns granularity? 100ns granularity does seem to make sense and IIRC was used by various DCE standards in the 90s and 2000s (not just used for SMB2/SMB3 protocol and various Windows filesystems) -- Thanks, Steve