Andrew, The following is why I think my patch should preferably be applied for 2.6.26, rather than waiting for .27. The first reason is the obvious. The test suite runs 99 tests. With my patch applied to 2.6.24-rc4, all tests pass (see the attached test results). There is another reason why I think we should apply the patch for .26. On 2.6.25, we have: Total tests: 99; passed: 73; failed: 26 On 2.6.26-rc4, we have: Total tests: 99; passed: 74; failed: 25 As far as I can see, this is due to the changes from Miklos's commit 02c6be615f1fcd37ac5ed93a3ad6692ad8991cd9 Author: Miklos Szeredi Date: Thu May 1 04:34:45 2008 -0700 But the small improvement in the test results isn't quite what it seems. There is for 2.6.25: Failed tests: 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 38 46 47 48 49 50 51 58 59 60 75 76 87 88 98 99 And for 2.6.24-rc4: Failed tests: 21 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 38 41 46 47 48 49 50 51 58 59 60 75 76 87 88 98 99 Looking at the list shows that 2.6.24-rc4 fixes tests 22 and 23, but breaks test 41[*]. I don't think we should do that. Cheers, Michael [*] Test 41 is: Readable file descriptor (futimens(3)) test Owner=root; perms=-rw-rw-rw-; EFAs=--- ./test_utimensat -q -d /tmp/utimensat_tests/utimensat.test_file NULL 0 n 0 n EXPECTED: SUCCESS y y RESULT: EACCES FAILED test 41 In other words, make the call utimensat(fd, NULL, {{0, UTIME_NOW}, {0. UTIME_NOW}}, 0) where fd is a read-only (O_RDONLY) descriptor that refers to a file that is not owned by the caller, but is writable by the caller. This call should succeed. -- 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