Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

[Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I'm a bit leery of abusing the timespec value like this, though.  A
> flags field seem like it would be cleaner.

It's ugly.  Then you have the parameter, which might have nice valid
values, and they get ignored.  I thought about it when this was
discussed in the working group and thought it's a toss up.


> Something else... if we're dickering with these interfaces, shouldn't we
> allow setting atime as well?

Why?  To allow somebody to hide her/his tracks?

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature