Re: [GIT PULL v2] timestamp fixes

[Christian Brauner]

> > Those workloads are broken garbage, and we should *not* use that kind
> > of sh*t to decide on VFS internals.
> >
> 
> Sorry, I phrased it completely wrong.

Thanks for clearing this up. I had just formulated my own reply but I'll
happily delete it. :)

> The workloads don't expect 1ns resolution.

Yes, they don't. In the revert explanation I just used that number to
illustrate the general ordering problem. The workload that surfaced the
issue is just plain weird of course but it points to a more general
ordering problem.

> The workloads just compare timestamps of objects and expect some sane
> not-before ordering rules.

Yes.

> If user visible timestamps are truncated to 100ns all is good.

Yes.