On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, David Malone wrote: > > 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.
Yep, that was going to be my next point. I don't think this is particularly useful, or necessarily even a good idea, but AFAIK POSIX doesn't say anything about using a consistent timer resolution when processing file timestamps, so don't let that stop you... Now let's re-raise the *original* bikeshed of adding nanosecond support to sleep! _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
