Re: [PATCH] UTC timestamp option for FAT filesystems

barry bouwsma
2008-06-25T19:41:52Z

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, Joe Peterson <joe@skyrush.com> wrote:

> > In addition, may I request that not only the option
> `-o utc,...' be
> > accepted, but also as an alternate, the string
> `gmt', not because it's
>
> I do understand what you are saying, however I would
> suggest not making
> "gmt" a synonym for the following reasons:

Fair enough, I won't press the matter. I'm just one of those old
f*rts who still remembers the american WWV talking clock and how
unnerving it was after years to be hearing ``Coordinated Universal
Time'' so I deserve to wither and drop off the vine. Also, in case
of all my consumer equipment, I think 100% of it refers to GMT+2
(in my present time zone), so I wonder if in different languages,
there's a preference for casual use of the phrase GMT (a quick
look in my dictionary shows an entry for GMT, nothing for UTC,
but then, it has no entry for `operating system' or its translated
equivalent.

Wait, I said I wouldn't press the matter.

Anyway, I'm doing a quick diff against my code. (Mine also
contains no documentation either, which is why I didn't post my
hacks a couple days earlier.) I see some things that are likely
irrelevant; however, here's something missing -- WARNING, line
numbers are based on hacked 2.6.24-ish code; later kernels I've
built so far have been without these hacks -- PLEASE REVIEW AND
IF APPLICABLE, APPLY BY HAND

--- /mnt/usr/local/src/linux-2.6.24/fs/fat/inode.c-DIST 2008-01-30 10:59:19.000000000 +0100
+++ /mnt/usr/local/src/linux-2.6.24/fs/fat/inode.c 2008-04-13 07:09:10.000000000 +0200
@@ -826,6 +829,9 @@ static int fat_show_options(struct seq_f
seq_puts(m, ",showexec");
if (opts->sys_immutable)
seq_puts(m, ",sys_immutable");
+/* XXX HACK */
+ if (opts->utc)
+ seq_puts(m, ",utc");
if (!isvfat) {
if (opts->dotsOK)
seq_puts(m, ",dotsOK=yes");

The above will result in something like
/dev/sdc1 on /opt type vfat (ro,utc,dmask=222,fmask=133,shortname=win95)
(sorry if your code has this and I overlooked it)

Apart from this, if your diffs compile and work, it looks like only
trivial coding style differences between ours (thus yours are better).

thanks,
barry bouwsma