On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 06:07:40PM +0200, Phil Carns wrote: > I think the results from the touch_atime() configure test are actually > inverted: > > AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) > AC_DEFINE(HAVE_TOUCH_ATIME, 1, Define if kernel has touch_atime routine), > AC_MSG_RESULT(no), > > > should be: > > AC_MSG_RESULT(no), > AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) > AC_DEFINE(HAVE_TOUCH_ATIME, 1, Define if kernel has touch_atime routine),
You're correct of course, phil. I've fixed my mistake in CVS > Apparently some 2.6 kernels have both touch_atime and update_atime, > because it didn't cause a problem on the first system I built on. > However, it doesn't work on 2.4 kernels. Yup, 2.6 had update_atime right up until 2.6.16. ==rob -- Rob Latham Mathematics and Computer Science Division A215 0178 EA2D B059 8CDF Argonne National Labs, IL USA B29D F333 664A 4280 315B _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-developers mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
