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

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
stick across mounts/umounts.

Also, looking at disk inode structures of UFS, SysV, JFFS2, GFS2, EFS, I
think they should handle lutimesat(2) just fine.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

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

• Prev by Date: vger truncating CC lists
• Next by Date: Re: page_mkwrite caller is racy?
• 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]