On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Volker Lendecke
<Volker.Lendecke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The nice thing about this is also that if this is supposed
> to be fully usable for Windows clients, the birthtime needs
> to be changeable. That's what NTFS semantics gives you, thus
> Windows clients tend to require it.
Ok. So it's not really a creation date, exactly the same way ctime
isn't at all a creation date.
And maybe that actually hints at a better solution: maybe a better
model is to create a new per-thread flag that says "do ctime updates
the way windows does them".
So instead of adding another "btime" - which isn't actually what even
windows does - just admit that the _real_ issue is that Unix and
Windows semantics are different for the pre-existing "ctime".
The fact is, windows has "access time", "modification time" and
"creation time" _exactly_ like UNIX. It's just that the ctime has
slightly different semantics in windows vs unix. So quite frankly,
it's totally insane to introduce a "birthtime", when that isn't even
what windows wants, just because people cannot face the actual real
difference.
Tell me why we shouldn't just do this right?
Linus
--
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
