On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 11:43 PM OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hm, this changes mtime includes ctime update. So, the question is, this > behavior is compatible with Windows's fatfs behavior? E.g. Windows > updates mtime on rename? > > If not same behavior with Windows, new behavior is new incompatible > behavior, and looks break fundamental purpose of this. > > I was thinking, we ignores ctime update (because fatfs doesn't have) and > always same with mtime. What behavior was actually compatible with > Windows? > If possible, to ignore ctime update may be a better choice that doesn't affect mtime. But we need an initial value for ctime when the inode is loaded. One possible option is to use mtime. Although ctime won't be updated anymore, when mtime is changed, ctime needs to take effect. Otherwise the next time the inode is loaded, ctime will be inconsistent. That is, ctime is still updated indirectly by mtime. It seems impossible to avoid updating ctime, or do we just show ctime a non-sense value? Thanks.
