On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:32:03 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
Yes, I agree with you and Patrick - very sensible optimisation.
It would be nice, but I would be loathe to add any cost to 'stat' unless we
knew it was needed.
If we had an xstat() which could explicitly ask for
high-precision-time-stamps, then yes - otherwise maybe not.
(or maybe define a system:linux.xxxx xattr which would read as a
high-precision time stamp... I seem to be warming to the idea of using the
xattr interface for enhancing stat).
NeilBrown
--