Re: [fuse-devel] utimensat fails to update ctime

From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
To: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>
Cc: "Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	bug-coreutils <bug-coreutils@gnu.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, ctrn3e8 <ctrn3e8@gmail.com>,
	"Jean-Pierre André" <jean-pierre.andre@wanadoo.fr>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] utimensat fails to update ctime
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:23:28 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vdfxmr4f.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B3212ED.4090208@byu.net> (Eric Blake's message of "Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:54:05 -0700")

Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net> writes:

> By the way, is there any reliable way, other than uname() and checking for
> a minimum kernel version, to tell if all file systems will properly
> support UTIME_OMIT?

Um... sorry, I don't know. And it might be hard to detect efficiently if
the workaround is enough efficient like one fstat() syscall (Pass fd to
kernel.  I.e. just read from cached inode).

> For coreutils 8.3, we will be inserting a workaround where instead of
> using UTIME_OMIT, we call fstatat() in advance of utimensat() and pass
> the original timestamp down.  But it would be nice to avoid the
> penalty of the extra stat if there were a reliable way to ensure that,
> regardless of file system, the use of UTIME_OMIT will be honored.
> After all, coreutils wants touch(1) to work regardless of how old the
> user's kernel and file system drivers are.

Or it would depend on coreutils policy though, personally I think it's
ok that it ignores the bug as known fs bug, otherwise coreutils would
need to collect workarounds on several filesystems of several OSes.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs