From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 25 10: 9:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from root.com (root.com [209.102.106.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA9E37B405 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:09:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dg@root.com) Received: (from dg@localhost) by root.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6PGu6Y23524; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:56:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dg) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:56:05 -0700 From: David Greenman To: "David E. Cross" Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: exec() doesn't update access time Message-ID: <20010725095605.B18533@nexus.root.com> References: <200107250035.UAA72348@cs.rpi.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200107250035.UAA72348@cs.rpi.edu>; from crossd@cs.rpi.edu on Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:35:11PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >I noticed that exec(2) does not update the last access time of a file... >is this intentional? Not exactly intentional (I never had that as a goal when I wrote execve()), but it's a side-effect of exec not doing a 'read' on the file in the traditional sense. This has been discussed several times over the past many years and the end result is that 1) Noone really seems to care very much, and 2) There are performance reducing implications if the atime update is forced. -DG David Greenman Co-founder, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org President, TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message