Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:39:41 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, 'Jilles Tjoelker' <jilles@stack.nl> Subject: Re: futimens and utimensat vs birthtime Message-ID: <2405496.WdPSxGzEuT@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <55CDFF32.7050601@freebsd.org> References: <55CDFF32.7050601@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2405496.WdPSxGzEuT>