In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > This patch looks promising, thanks, I will be testing it too. > > Erez Zadok wrote: > > + (upper inode time being the max of all lower ones). > > By the way, I find this policy a little odd. > > For regular files, it looks like if one lower branch has the > highest mtime and another branch has the highest ctime, > then the timestamps of the upper file will not match those > of any individual lower file (which would be disturbing). > Is that correct ?
We don't mix ctime/atime/mtime: it's the max of each individual type. So atime, ctime,and mtime change individually. For regular files it's a little different b/c the invariant for non-directories is that only one lower object is looked up at the time (so the "max" becomes a straight copy). > Besides, in order to preserve the invariant, the implementation > seems to assume that lower timestamps can only increase over > time (which is not true). If one uses utimes(2) to change the inode time absolutely, we just take those times as is in ->setattr. > Wouldn't it be safer to reset the > timestamps at the beginning of unionfs_copy_attr_times() too ? Hmmm, possible, I'll take a look. Thanks. > Pascal Erez. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
