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]