Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386

[Ulrich Drepper]

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.  It much easier to cope with unavailable syscalls then it is with
partially working ones.

-- 
â Ulrich Drepper â Red Hat, Inc. â 444 Castro St â Mountain View, CA â

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature