Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:44:57 -0400 | From | Peter Staubach <> | Subject | Re: [NFS] [PATCH] NFS server does not update mtime on setattr request |
| |
Trond Myklebust wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:26 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > > >>J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:44:50AM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>I saw that wording too and assumed what I think that you assumed. I >>>>assumed that that meant that if the new size is equal to the old size, >>>>then nothing should be changed. However, that does not seem to be how >>>>those words are to be interpreted. They are to be interpreted as "if >>>>the new length of the file can be successfully set, then the >>>>mtime/ctime should be changed". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>What's the basis for that interpretation? The language seems extremely >>>clear: >>> >>> "On successful completion, if the file size is changed, these >>> functions will mark for update the st_ctime and st_mtime fields >>> of the file, and if the file is a regular file, the S_ISUID and >>> S_ISGID bits of the file mode may be cleared." >>> >>>Why are you concerned about this? Do you have an actual application >>>that breaks? >>> >>> >>> >>Yes, there is a customer who is quite unhappy that the semantics over Linux >>client NFS are different than those of BSD, Solaris, and local file system >>access on Linux itself. The basis for my work is based on a bugzilla from >>this customer. >> >>My interpretation is based on looking at the local behavior on Linux, which >>changes mtime/ctime even if the file size does not change, and SunOS, which >>changes mtime/ctime even if the file size does not change and is very >>heavily SUSv3 compliant. >> >>In this case, "changed" does not mean "made different". It simply means >>that the file size is set to the new value. >> >>I would have chosen different words or a different interpretation too, >>but all of the evidence suggests that the semantics are as I stated. >> >> > >We've already fixed this to be SuSv3 compliant for both create and >truncate. Your "safe" suggestion would break truncate again. That is why >it is being vetoed. >
You are speaking of the client side changes? I don't have a problem with not taking them.
I am curious about how this would break truncate?
Thanx...
ps - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |