RFC: Change mtree nsec handling?

[Maxim Sobolev]

Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2009-Jan-30 01:43:35 -0800, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> Tim Kientzle wrote:
>>> For example, a timestamp of 1233295862.000001
>>> (1233295682 seconds and 1000 nanoseconds)
>>> will be printed like this by mtree:
>>>    time=1233295862.1000
>>> Unsurprisingly, the mtree parsing works the same
>>> way in reverse.
>> Given the age of mtree(8) I guess there are lot of existing mtree specs 
>> out there who rely on this behavior.
> 
> The existing code to read nanoseconds will handle either the old
> format or a %09d format (the for() loop that Tim added is unnecessary)
> so existing specs won't have a problem.  I think adding leading zeroes
> is the correct way to proceed.

My point is that it would not restore correct timestamp, not that it 
would not read it. The 1233295862.000001 before change would become 
1233295862.1000 after. I don't know how important is it, but I can 
imagine some applications where it could be an issue (e.g. incremental 
backup).

-Maxim