On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:25:19 +0200, Roger A. Faulkner wrote:
>> From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling)
>> "Roger A. Faulkner" <Roger.Faulkner at sun.com> wrote:
>>
... ... ...
>>> In addition, in order to query the timestamp resolution for
>>> a given file or directory, fpathconf() and pathconf() will
>>> be extended to accept a new name, _PC_TIMESTAMP_RESOLUTION,
>>> defined in <unistd.h>. The return value of fpathconf()
>>> and pathconf() in this case will be a number in the range
>>> 1 to 1000 million, indicating the number of nanoseconds
>>> of the file's timestamp resolution. Each local file system
>>> will be made to understand this new VOP_PATHCONF operation
>>> and return the appropriate value.
>> IIRC, then the pcfs timestamps have a 2 second timestamp granularity
>> for the mtime and a one day granularity for the atime.
>>
>> The latter cannot be represented in the pathconf() fcall.
>>
>> J?rg
>
> Yeah, well...
>
> I just made pathconf(_PC_TIMESTAMP_RESOLUTION) return 1000 000 000
> for pcfs. Is that good enough? Does anyone really care?
> Should I make it fail (-1 w/ EINVAL)?
Hi Roger,
The latest version of the standards say:
"[EOVERFLOW] The value of name is _PC_TIMESTAMP_RESOLUTION
and the resolution is larger than {LONG_MAX}."
Cheers,
Don
>
> Roger
