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

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 ❖

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386
    • From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386
    • From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386
    • From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386
    • From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Oops on serial access on kernel 2.6.16.38
• Next by Date: Re: VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]