Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:26:21 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, "'Jilles Tjoelker'" <jilles@stack.nl> Subject: Re: futimens and utimensat vs birthtime Message-ID: <55D09D8D.7010206@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <2405496.WdPSxGzEuT@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <55CDFF32.7050601@freebsd.org> <2405496.WdPSxGzEuT@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/15/15 1:39 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, August 14, 2015 10:46:10 PM Julian Elischer wrote: >> I would like to implement this call. but would like input as to it's >> nature. >> The code inside the system would already appear to support handling >> three elements, though it needs some scrutiny, >> so all that is needed is a system call with the ability to set the >> birthtime directly. >> >> Whether it should take the form of the existing calls but expecting >> three items is up for discussion. >> Maybe teh addition of a flags argument to specify which items are >> present and which to set. >> >> ideas? > I believe these should be new calls. Only utimensat() provides a flag > argument, but it is reserved for AT_* flags. I wasn't suggesting we keep the old ones and silently make them take 3 args :-) I was thining of suplementing them wth new syscalls and the obvious names are those you suggested. however I do wonder if there will ever be a need for a 4th... > I would be fine with > something like futimens3() and utimensat3() (where 3 means "three > timespecs"). Jilles implemented futimens() and utimensat(), so he > might have ideas as well. I would probably stick the birth time in > the third (final) timespec slot to make it easier to update new code > (you can use an #ifdef just around ts[2] without having to #ifdef the > entire block). >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55D09D8D.7010206>