lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] INITRAMFS: Add option to preserve mtime from INITRAMFS cpio images
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:41:31 -0700
Nye Liu <nyet@nyet.org> wrote:

> > > collected[N_ALIGN(name_len) + body_len] = '\0';
> > > clean_path(collected, 0);
> > > sys_symlink(collected + N_ALIGN(name_len), collected);
> > > sys_lchown(collected, uid, gid);
> > > + do_lutime(collected, &mtime);
> > > state = SkipIt;
> > > next_state = Reset;
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -466,6 +520,7 @@ static char * __init unpack_to_rootfs(char *buf, unsigned len, int check_only)
> > > buf += inptr;
> > > len -= inptr;
> > > }
> > > + dir_utime();
> >
> > Perhaps this is the simplest implementation - I didn't check the fine
> > details. What's your thinking here?
> >
>
> The main problem is that i need to save off the entire list for later
> processing of the directory mtimes... if i process the directory mtimes
> in the same pass as the file/link mtimes, touching the directory inode
> when creating/modifying the file/links updates the directory mtime, and
> overwrites whatever mtime i set the directory to when i created it.
>
> The only solution is to do a two pass, which is why the list is
> necessary. If there is a better way, i did not find it :(
>
> It could be that i misunderstood your question though :)

I'm wondering whether this code need to use `struct utimbuf' at all.
Or at least, as much as it does. utimbuf is more a userspace-facing
thing whereas in-kernel timespecs and timevals are more common.

The code as you have it does a fair few conversions into utimbuf format
(both directly and via the existing functions which it calls). Would
it be simpler if it dealt in terms of timespecs?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-04 00:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site