linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] fat: fix time updates for create and delete

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87fw4f5g70.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:11 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fat: fix time updates for create and delete

OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> writes:

> Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:
>
>>>> What was difference with XFS, FAT, and MSDOS?
>> Okay, the description of patch was lacked, So I will resend patch with
>> specifical test reseult with other filesystem.
>>>
>>> BTW, I recall I checked this, and yes, it is strange. But it is historical.
>> "historical" means It is difficult to change ?
>
> The timestamp handling was not same with unix fs from initial, and FAT
> doesn't have inode change timestamp.  This historical reason it is not
> better to change to same with unix fs, and never be possible to support
> inode change timestamp cleanly.

I.e. the user visible change without strong reason is the wrong.
-- 
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/