From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754783AbYE3ToS (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 15:44:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753865AbYE3ToC (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 15:44:02 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.228]:20469 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752828AbYE3ToA (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 15:44:00 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mqExEnW14exjqTDzJ2BFF+iWqWFt2AUaNNxNLw8RgRiSs/yAGzyWzJcubmtMoeBNm+WgbjrsoYw0bnjRX+RklsYKxZeC6D+hlI4PltN7JNzPV16fFETbyvBEkl25V7mJ+/uhb1Uf298jmRCFir22LPCMi6r/obZaUrB8v56u0WE= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 21:43:59 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk" To: "Miklos Szeredi" Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v3] Cc: drepper@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <482D4665.4050401@gmail.com> <48401E7E.9090304@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Miklos, You omitted to answer my question, the last sentence below: On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Miklos, > > I already fixed most of the isues with utimensat() in my previous > version of the patch several days back, and that patch (probably > still) applies against current mainline. [...] > This is a bug. It is one of *several* bugs in the original > implementation of the utimensat()/futimens() interface. All of them > should be fixed. I have by now provided fixes for most of them. (Not > point 2 above, but with a little help that should be quickly fixed as > well.) At this point, I think you need to explain why you think those > fixes shouldn't be applied. Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html