From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk" Subject: Re: [patch 0/4 v2] vfs: fix utimensat() non-conformances to spec Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:34:16 +0200 Message-ID: References: <484694C1.7030603@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jamie@shareable.org, drepper@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: "Miklos Szeredi" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> This patch series is a revised version of the patch series >> that I sent yesterday to fix various utimensat() >> non-conformances. Patches 1 and 2 are unchanged (and were >> Acked by Miklos); patches 3 and 4 are revised following >> comments by Miklos. >> >> As requested I've split the original patch >> ("utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v4] (patch)"; >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/24325 ) >> into four parts. Ideally, these should be applied for >> 2.6.26-rc, for the reasons outlined in my earlier mail >> "utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v4] (test results)", >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/689411/ . >> >> The four patches can be applied independently, except that >> patch 3 needs patch 2 to be applied first. > > ACK for all four patches. > > In patch 3/4 the indentation of that big "if" looks really horribly > broken, but it will be cleaned out completely, so I won't complain... Aargh -- true, I messed up the indentation! -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html