Peter Memishian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > If we do decide to promote such a facility, I'd hope we'd find a less
> ugly
> > > interface for it.
> >
> > What is is that you don't like?
>
> For one, the leading underscore in the ioctl name (which is clearly
> implementation namespace). For two, the fact that it's conceptually
> divorced from the utimes(2) family.
An underscore does not separate functionality.
struct timeval atv;
/*
* On Solaris 2.x root may reset accesstime without changing ctime.
*/
if (my_uid == ROOT_UID) {
atv.tv_sec = info->f_atime;
atv.tv_usec = info->f_ansec/1000;
return (ioctl(fd, _FIOSATIME, &atv));
}
...
struct timeval tp[2];
tp[0].tv_sec = info->f_atime;
tp[0].tv_usec = info->f_ansec/1000;
tp[1].tv_sec = info->f_mtime;
tp[1].tv_usec = info->f_mnsec/1000;
return (utimes(name, &tp));
Where do you see a conceptional difference?
You could add a futimes().....
utimes() is not even an active POSIX interface!
utime() on the other side is POSIX but smells the aura of the 1970s.
Note that POSIX requires for security reasons to set the ctime if you
call utime*().
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
