Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Thu Apr 26 2007 - 20:11:42 EST

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:49:05 -0400 Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If the tv_nsec value of either of the elements of the utimes parameter to utimensat() is UTIME_OMIT no update of that respective value is performed.
> ITYM "If the value of either of the elements..."
> +#define UTIME_NOW ((1l << 30) - 1l)
> +#define UTIME_OMIT ((1l << 30) - 2l)
> OK, so there's no collision on ts_nsec if unnormalised timespecs are
> disallowed.
> But there's a potential collision on ts_sec? Do we know what date that
> corresponds to?

"If the tv_nsec value" implies that these magic numbers have no impact
on these.

I'm a bit leery of abusing the timespec value like this, though. A
flags field seem like it would be cleaner.

Something else... if we're dickering with these interfaces, shouldn't we
allow setting atime as well?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at