|From:||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 02/18] xstat: Add a pair of system calls to make extended file stats available [ver #6]|
|Date:||Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:47:46 -0700|
|Cc:||David Howells <dhowells-AT-redhat.com>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh-AT-medozas.de>, linux-cifs-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs-AT-vger.kernel.org, samba-technical-AT-lists.samba.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4-AT-vger.kernel.org|
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de> wrote: > > The nice thing about this is also that if this is supposed > to be fully usable for Windows clients, the birthtime needs > to be changeable. That's what NTFS semantics gives you, thus > Windows clients tend to require it. Ok. So it's not really a creation date, exactly the same way ctime isn't at all a creation date. And maybe that actually hints at a better solution: maybe a better model is to create a new per-thread flag that says "do ctime updates the way windows does them". So instead of adding another "btime" - which isn't actually what even windows does - just admit that the _real_ issue is that Unix and Windows semantics are different for the pre-existing "ctime". The fact is, windows has "access time", "modification time" and "creation time" _exactly_ like UNIX. It's just that the ctime has slightly different semantics in windows vs unix. So quite frankly, it's totally insane to introduce a "birthtime", when that isn't even what windows wants, just because people cannot face the actual real difference. Tell me why we shouldn't just do this right? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds