On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Steve French wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@xxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> Steve French wrote: >>>> >>>> So, are we ready for Mingming or one of the ext4 developers to propose >>>> a patch for this via xattrs (I can do a similar one for cifs). >>>> Sounds like various have said: >>>> >>>> 1) xattrs instead of ioctl >>>> 2) get of create time allowed by default, but set of create time limited >>>> >>>> But for the second part of this - how should we set nanosecond >>>> timestamps for the others (or in Samba's case, rounded to 100 >>>> nanoseconds for DCE time) ... a millisecond granularity for utimes is >>>> a very long time these days. >>> >>> What's wrong with stat(2)? AFAIK, it supports nanoseconds. >> >> An earlier post from Mingming IIRC noted that utimes does not support >> setting nanosecond timestamps (e.g. write time). >> >> "The function utime() allows specification of time stamps with a >> resolution of 1 second. ... The function utimes() is similar, but the >> times argument allows a reso lution of 1 microsecond for the >> timestamps. " 1 millisecond is not sufficient, and as a result Samba >> has to store duplicate time stamps (in Samba specific xattrs) which we >> would like to avoid wherever possible > > If you are trying to update it, you can use utimensat(2). Looks like that should work based on what I see in fs/utimes.c ... but I have heard from two that think it doesn't work, so time to test it ... (unfortunately the libc is not new enough on this system ... ugh). -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
