Ian Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why don't we put a patch now for --preserve-atime=system, and we can > add --preserve-atime=heuristic when kernel support exists, since > that might take some time?
(no pun intended :-). Yes, I guess that makes sense for now. >> Or -- better yet -- why not have open(...O_NOATIME) fail with errno == >> EINVAL when invoked on a file system that does not support O_NOATIME? >> That would be similar to how open(...O_SYNC) is supposed to behave, so >> it makes a lot of sense to do it that way. > I'd agree that that makes sense, except that O_NOATIME is a GNU > extension, and the GNU interface does not specify the possibility of > EINVAL. And we have kernels out there already that silently ignore > O_NOATIME. I don't know what you mean about "possibility of EINVAL", but clearly this is a kernel bug and should get fixed. Can you please report it to people who can fix it? (If they'd rather return some other errno value I won't argue.) _______________________________________________ Bug-tar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-tar
