Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

Ulrich Drepper
2007-04-27T00:55:54Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 591 bytes --]

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 #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]