[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87vdfxmr4f.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:23:28 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Eric Blake <ebb9@....net>
Cc: Jean-Pierre André
<jean-pierre.andre@...adoo.fr>, fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com, ctrn3e8 <ctrn3e8@...il.com>,
bug-coreutils <bug-coreutils@....org>
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] utimensat fails to update ctime
Eric Blake <ebb9@....net> writes:
> By the way, is there any reliable way, other than uname() and checking for
> a minimum kernel version, to tell if all file systems will properly
> support UTIME_OMIT?
Um... sorry, I don't know. And it might be hard to detect efficiently if
the workaround is enough efficient like one fstat() syscall (Pass fd to
kernel. I.e. just read from cached inode).
> For coreutils 8.3, we will be inserting a workaround where instead of
> using UTIME_OMIT, we call fstatat() in advance of utimensat() and pass
> the original timestamp down. But it would be nice to avoid the
> penalty of the extra stat if there were a reliable way to ensure that,
> regardless of file system, the use of UTIME_OMIT will be honored.
> After all, coreutils wants touch(1) to work regardless of how old the
> user's kernel and file system drivers are.
Or it would depend on coreutils policy though, personally I think it's
ok that it ignores the bug as known fs bug, otherwise coreutils would
need to collect workarounds on several filesystems of several OSes.
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists