From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <52B300CC.4090705@lynxline.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:21:00 +0100 From: Oleksandr Iakovliev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@9fans.net References: <3e1e9e6fbfa856a01013a2f51b8d244f@coraid.com> <34270f8ddb3fc06e71d4db496a891dd4@brasstown.quanstro.net> <20131219060725.7EB64B82A@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030403070003010404070805" Subject: Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue Topicbox-Message-UUID: a0b9f902-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030403070003010404070805 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/19/2013 11:59 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > On 19 December 2013 06:07, Bakul Shah > wrote: > > I suppose making atime, mtime of type struct timespec would > break too much including 9p? > > > It's unfortunate that the times in the protocol have low resolution. > I think ix does better. Is it time for for 9p2014? --------------030403070003010404070805 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 12/19/2013 11:59 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:

On 19 December 2013 06:07, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:
I suppose making atime, mtime of type struct timespec would
break too much including 9p?

It's unfortunate that the times in the protocol have low resolution.
I think ix does better.

Is it time for for 9p2014?
--------------030403070003010404070805--