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

2007-01-29 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:07:04AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > What do you mean by "filesystems cannot support lutimes"? Filesystems > > that don't have on-disk timestamps for symlinks? > > Yes. Checked to be sure, on ext2, ext3, reiserfs, XFS symlink timestamps stic

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

2007-01-29 Thread Ulrich Drepper
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > What do you mean by "filesystems cannot support lutimes"? Filesystems > that don't have on-disk timestamps for symlinks? Yes. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

2007-01-29 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 12:45:20PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > 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 imple

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

2007-01-29 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
t. ----- [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386 lutimesat(2) does everything futimesat(2) does except it doesn't follow symlinks. It could be used by tar(1) and cp(1). FreeBSD and NetBSD have lutimes(2) which can be emulated by C library. lutimesat(2) accepts &quo

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

2007-01-28 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: +asmlinkage long sys_lutimesat(int dfd, char __user *filename, struct timeval __user *utimes) Could we get these to take struct timespec instead of struct timeval? Right now we have a real problem in that the interfaces that *set* times take struct timeval (microsecond

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

2007-01-26 Thread 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

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

2007-01-26 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:23:45 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > lutimesat(2) does everything futimesat(2) does except it doesn't follow > symlinks. > > It could be used by tar(1) and cp(1). > > FreeBSD and NetBSD have lutimes(2) which can be emulated by C library: > > luti

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

2007-01-26 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
lutimesat(2) does everything futimesat(2) does except it doesn't follow symlinks. It could be used by tar(1) and cp(1). FreeBSD and NetBSD have lutimes(2) which can be emulated by C library: lutimesat(AT_FDCWD, filename, utimes) Closes http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4433 Signed-