YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:

> > The patch below is a result of a discussion off-line with Christos.
> > The granularity of the mtime doesn't need to be down to the nanosecond
> > - using the kernel "time" variable (which is updated on each
> > hardclock call) saves a potentially relatively expensive call to
> > microtime/nanotime for each write, and is more than accurate enough to
> > track pty idle times.
> 
> it isn't good to mix "time" and nanotime
> because it can make timestamps go backward sometimes.

You're suggesting that ptyfs_itimes() use "time" as well if any of the
timespec pointers are NULL then?  Or a different solution?

Cheers,
Simon.
--
Simon Burge                            <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
NetBSD Support and Service:         http://www.wasabisystems.com/