Jeff Layton <jlay...@kernel.org> 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? David _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
