Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

[H. Peter Anvin]

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?

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/