Ian Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Should't a clean Linux implementation offer a related [f]pathconf() call
> > for this feature?
>
> Maybe. But the Linux implementors were just trying to grab the libc
> interface,
> which doesn't say anything about fpathconf().
Well, the interface itself does not seem to be well designed.
Something like ioctl(fd, _FIOSATIME, &atv) (as on Solaris) seems to be more
closer to the UNIX & POSIX philosophy....
BTW: star uses ioctl(fd, _FIOSATIME, &atv) since 10 years.
> Probably the interface to find out if O_NOATIME works will be simple: If you
> do open(), and O_NOATIME is not OK for this filesystem, then open() will just
> return EINVAL. I'm OK with adding an fpathconf() facility too, but the big
> work is going to be just teaching the kernel which filesystems work and which
> don't.
How do you like to be sure if you are on a Linux version that just ignores
O_NOATIME and thus never returns EINVAL? This does not look to be a good idea
unless the O_NOATIME flag would have been implemented this way from the
very beginning.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
Bug-tar mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-tar
