[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463149A8.6070408@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:54:00 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Does the spec say what the OS should do if (ts_nsec => 1e9)?
Yes, return EINVAL. We already do this. It's just that now we have to
recognize two special values.
> OK, so there's no collision on ts_nsec if unnormalised timespecs are
> disallowed.
Indeed, that's the basis of using the special values.
I chose the values of the constants so that they are a) out of the way
of valid values and b) don't have to be adjusted for 32-bit compat code.
> But there's a potential collision on ts_sec? Do we know what date that
> corresponds to?
No, there is no collision. The tv_sec value is relevant. The
UTIME_OMIT and UTIME_NOW value refers to the atime/mtime respectively,
not just the tv_nsec field of either. It makes no sense to just set
tv_sec, the tv_nsec value would be basically random.
In my patch I'm testing that tv_sec is zero in case any of the special
values is used in the corresponding tv_nsec field. That's more than the
standard currently requires but I think it's better and I try to get the
standard proposal changed. If this doesn't happen I'll make appropriate
changes at userlevel for the "strictly POSIX" mode.
> Do you have a testcase app which can be used by arch maintainers?
Attached here.
--
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
View attachment "utimensat-test.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (2912 bytes)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (252 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists