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