Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:05:09 +0300 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386 |
| |
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 12:45:20PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > OK, but I don't recall having seeing a demand for lutimes(). Opinions > > are sought? > > It's an interface which has been available on other platforms forever > (lutimes, not lutimesat). If it can be implemented correctly on the > interesting file systems I'd say "go ahead", it can only be useful and > have more benefits than the probably small cost of implementing it. > > If on the other hand important filesystems cannot support lutimes then > I'd wait with introducing the syscall at least until the support is > added.
What do you mean by "filesystems cannot support lutimes"? Filesystems that don't have on-disk timestamps for symlinks?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |