Re: utimes/futimes/lutimes syscalls

Nikita Danilov (Nikita@Namesys.COM)
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:45:30 +0400

Andrew Morton writes:
> Ulrich Drepper <> wrote:
> >
> > If
> > there are filesystems which store the sub-seconds on disk I think this
> > is necessary since otherwise all kinds of programs (including archives)
> > cannot be written correctly. If the sub-seconds only live in memory I
> > still think it would be good to have the syscalls but it would not be
> > that urgent.
> XFS (at least) stores nanoseconds on disk. So yes, I think we should make
> this change.

so does reiser4.

> -


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at