On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 09:25:29AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > 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. Just my 2 cents (as a Samba server implementor). I *hate* the idea of adding a "virtual" EA for birthtime. If you're going to add it, just add it to the stat struct like *BSD does. Don't abuse the other time fields, it's a new one. Jeff, please don't advocate for an EA for the Samba server to use. Don't add it as an EA. It's *not* an EA, it's a timestamp. Jeremy. -- 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
