BTW, I looked on the OpenAFS.org pages for a documented channel to submit patches, but didn't find one. If there's a better way to submit patches, I'd be happy to do that instead.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 919-962-5273 http://www.unc.edu/~utoddl /
/ Energizer Bunny arrested - charged with battery. /
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] 'split' a tree of directory into volumes? Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:02:30 -0800 From: Lester Barrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Asani Solutions, LLC To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Todd,
Not sure if I should submit a patch to the openafs-info list, so I thought I'd send it to you. It's a trivial patch so I doubt that it matters, but if you have a preferred incantation of diff aside from unified format (or if I should send this elsewhere) let me know. It's intended to be applied from the root of the openafs directory.
Regards,
Lester Barrows Asani Solutions, LLC Code IC Systems Group NASA Ames Research Center
"Jura rapelcgvba vf bhgynjrq, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."
On Monday 09 February 2004 11:51 am, Todd M. Lewis wrote:
Lester Barrows wrote: > [... good stuff about 'up' not preserving directory timestamps...] > > It seems to work as-is, but begs the question: If it's that easy, do you > (or does anyone) know why this isn't done already?
Sure: Nobody's contributed the code. Seriously. When I added the bits to make it aware of mount points, I had a particular itch to scratch that day. The fact that directory time stamps weren't preserved just didn't itch me then, and evidently hasn't bothered anybody else enough to do something about it...
...until you came along, of course! I'm looking forward to your patches. :-)
> Is there a reason that in > general we don't want to preserve directory timestamps when duplicating a > directory? Or is it possible for this to somehow blow up on me in an > obscure fashion? :-)
I can't think of any reason not to preserve timestamps. OTOH, I couldn't imagine why you'd ever want the old, non-mount point aware behavior either, but I made it an option with the old behavior as the default anyway. I guess that was not to surprise either one of the regular 'up' users who might have a script that depends on the old behavior. I still can't decide if that was a mistake.
Does 'up' preserve timestamps on files? If so, it should preserve them on directories too. My opinion, ymmv, etc. Cheers,
--- src/venus/up.c.orig 2004-02-09 10:29:25.000000000 -0800
+++ src/venus/up.c 2004-02-09 10:56:48.000000000 -0800
@@ -510,6 +510,7 @@ Copy(file1, file2, recursive, level)
char f1[MAXPATHLEN], f2[MAXPATHLEN];
char *p1, *p2;
struct dirent *d;
+ struct timeval tv[2];
if (verbose) {
printf("Level %d: Directory %s to %s\n", level, file1, file2);
@@ -590,6 +591,14 @@ Copy(file1, file2, recursive, level)
rcode = 1;
}
+ if (preserveDate) {
+ tv[0].tv_sec = s1.st_atime;
+ tv[0].tv_usec = 0;
+ tv[1].tv_sec = s1.st_mtime;
+ tv[1].tv_usec = 0;
+ utimes(file2, tv);
+ }
+
if (setacl == true) {
if (verbose) {
printf(" Set acls for %s\n", file2);