Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 9:53:04 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, davidg@Root.COM, freebsd-bugs@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Changed information for PR kern/260 Message-ID: <9503221653.AA10757@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199503221119.VAA11435@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Mar 22, 95 09:19:05 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Kirk thinks utimes() is required by POSIX to be synchronous. > > It only requires that utime() sets the atime and mtime and marks the > ctime for update. I think the first requirement is satisfied by > overriding any existing marks for update. Then utime() acts as if > it set the times (unless the system crashes, and POSIX can't specify > that system crashes don't lose information). > > Similarly, chmod() and chmod() have to change the mode immediately, > but they can't be required to commit the change to eternally > warranteed media. Couldn't have said it better myself. The actual wording is "marked for update". Using the times (which only have a 1 second resoloution anyway) as an IPC facility is plain silly. If an update notification is needed, it should be as a result of some mechanism other than polling the date. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9503221653.AA10757>