[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [fuse-devel] utimensat fails to update ctime

To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] utimensat fails to update ctime
From: Eric Blake <ebb9@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:54:05 -0700
Cc: Jean-Pierre André <jean-pierre.andre@xxxxxxxxxx>, fuse-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, ctrn3e8 <ctrn3e8@xxxxxxxxx>, bug-coreutils <bug-coreutils@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <87my1aevro.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4B2B156D.9040604@xxxxxxx> <87aaxclr4q.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B2F7421.10005@xxxxxxx> <4B2F7A95.3010708@xxxxxxx> <87hbrkjrk8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B304D04.6040501@xxxxxxx> <87d427jscr.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B3097C4.3060803@xxxxxxxxxx> <874onjjnln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B30B67A.7080703@xxxxxxxxxx> <87ljgvi1an.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B30F0C9.2020702@xxxxxxxxxx> <87my1aevro.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
Hash: SHA1

According to OGAWA Hirofumi on 12/22/2009 10:58 AM:
>> I suggest I port Miklos patch to fuse-lite soon,
>> and delay the low-level case (and microsecond
>> precision) until January. Does that suit your needs ?
> Thanks. Sounds good. I'm not using ntfs-3g actually, I just bridged the
> bug report on lkml to others. Eric?

I'm also bridging the report from a coreutils user (now cc'd).  Since I
also don't use ntfs-3g, I'm hoping that ctrn3e8 will be able to help test
whether the latest patch to ntfs-3g makes a difference in properly setting
times.  To me, delaying precision while fixing UTIME_OMIT semantics is a
reasonable approach.

By the way, is there any reliable way, other than uname() and checking for
a minimum kernel version, to tell if all file systems will properly
support UTIME_OMIT?  For coreutils 8.3, we will be inserting a workaround
where instead of using UTIME_OMIT, we call fstatat() in advance of
utimensat() and pass the original timestamp down.  But it would be nice to
avoid the penalty of the extra stat if there were a reliable way to ensure
that, regardless of file system, the use of UTIME_OMIT will be honored.
After all, coreutils wants touch(1) to work regardless of how old the
user's kernel and file system drivers are.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@xxxxxxx
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>