From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755316AbXD0A63 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:58:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755320AbXD0A63 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:58:29 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:34629 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755316AbXD0A62 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:58:28 -0400 Message-ID: <46314AAD.9010300@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:58:21 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Drepper CC: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation References: <200704262249.l3QMn5C2021588@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070426162530.bc30a1bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46313F99.6080402@zytor.com> <46314A08.9000209@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <46314A08.9000209@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ulrich Drepper wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> I'm a bit leery of abusing the timespec value like this, though. A >> flags field seem like it would be cleaner. > > It's ugly. Then you have the parameter, which might have nice valid > values, and they get ignored. I thought about it when this was > discussed in the working group and thought it's a toss up. It's pretty ugly either way :-/ >> Something else... if we're dickering with these interfaces, shouldn't we >> allow setting atime as well? > > Why? To allow somebody to hide her/his tracks? Primarily to let a backup program restore the full state of the filesystem. -hpa