Jim Meyering wrote: > * lib/utimens.c (gl_futimens) [HAVE_UTIMENSAT]: Work around what > appears to be a kernel bug that causes utimensat to return 280 > instead of 0, indicating success.
Is it known for sure that the bug will only affect the return value, and that utimensat() will nevertheless have done its job? If not, i.e. if you want to play safe, it would be appropriate to treat the return value 280 like -1 / ENOSYS. Bruno PS: it's a funny bug description: > + http://bugzilla.redhat.com/442352 > "problem reproducible ONLY but ALWAYS by building coreutils srpm between 10AM > UTC and ~3PM UTC"
