Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:45:39 +0100 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: Chagin Dmitry <chagin.dmitry@gmail.com> Cc: pluknet@frteebsd.org, d@delphij.net, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: futimens(2) and utimensat(2) Message-ID: <20130119184539.GA78815@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20130119145929.GA23230@dchagin.static.corbina.net> References: <4F4DC876.3010809@delphij.net> <20130119145929.GA23230@dchagin.static.corbina.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:59:29PM +0400, Chagin Dmitry wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:40:54PM -0800, Xin Li wrote: > > These are required by IEEE Std 1003.1-2008. Patchset at: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/for_review/utimens.diff > Hi Xin, > Do you plan to commit this? I would like to see a good implementation of futimens(2) and utimensat(2) in 10.0. From what I remember, pluknet@'s patch was closer to that than delphij@'s patch. (For example, a timespec array with both values UTIME_NOW should require the same permissions as a NULL timespec array.) I wrote a man page: http://www.stack.nl/~jilles/unix/utimensat.2 I think it is best to have a separate man page and not stuff the new calls into the utimes/lutimes/futimes/futimesat man page, which would end up rather confusing. -- Jilles Tjoelker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130119184539.GA78815>