On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:22:58 +0200 utz lehmann <lkml123@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > But the fact is, th Unix ctime semantics are insane and largely > > useless. There's a damn good reason almost nobody uses ctime under > > unix. > > > > So what I'm suggesting is that we have a flag - either per-process or > > per-mount - that just says "use windows semantics for ctime". > > When abusing an existing time stamp use atime not ctime please. > ctime has it's uses. atime was just a mistake and is nearly useless. > > And with noatime we already have creation time semantics for atime. > Ugh. Honestly all of this talk of abusing different time fields seems like craziness to me. It's going to be very hard to do that without breaking *something*. There's also very little reason to do this when xattrs are a much cleaner approach. Neil Brown has put forth a very reasoned justification for putting the birthtime in an xattr. After reading it, I think that makes more sense than anything. It's also something that can be done without any extra infrastructure. If at some point in the future we get an xstat-like syscall then we can always add birthtime to that as well. Ditto for the other fields under discussion (i_generation and the like). -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
