Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:45:20 -0800 | From | Ulrich Drepper <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > OK, but I don't recall having seeing a demand for lutimes(). Opinions > are sought?
It's an interface which has been available on other platforms forever (lutimes, not lutimesat). If it can be implemented correctly on the interesting file systems I'd say "go ahead", it can only be useful and have more benefits than the probably small cost of implementing it.
If on the other hand important filesystems cannot support lutimes then I'd wait with introducing the syscall at least until the support is added. It much easier to cope with unavailable syscalls then it is with partially working ones.
-- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |