Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] iversion: update comments with info about atime updates

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:40:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Yes, saying only that it must be different is intentional. What we
> really want is for consumers to treat this as an opaque value for the
> most part [1]. Therefore an implementation based on hashing would
> conform to the spec, I'd think, as long as all of the relevant info is
> part of the hash.

It'd conform, but it might not be as useful as an increasing value.

E.g. a client can use that to work out which of a series of reordered
write replies is the most recent, and I seem to recall that can prevent
unnecessary invalidations in some cases.

--b.