On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 10:39:41AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, August 14, 2015 10:46:10 PM Julian Elischer wrote: > > I would like to implement this call. but would like input as to it's > > nature. > > The code inside the system would already appear to support handling > > three elements, though it needs some scrutiny, > > so all that is needed is a system call with the ability to set the > > birthtime directly.
> > Whether it should take the form of the existing calls but expecting > > three items is up for discussion. > > Maybe teh addition of a flags argument to specify which items are > > present and which to set. > > ideas? > I believe these should be new calls. Only utimensat() provides a flag > argument, but it is reserved for AT_* flags. I would be fine with > something like futimens3() and utimensat3() (where 3 means "three > timespecs"). Jilles implemented futimens() and utimensat(), so he > might have ideas as well. I would probably stick the birth time in > the third (final) timespec slot to make it easier to update new code > (you can use an #ifdef just around ts[2] without having to #ifdef the > entire block). Without adding new syscalls, it is possible to use the first tv_nsec to indicate that a new birth time is present. In that case, times[0].tv_nsec == UTIME_WITHBIRTHTIME would indicate that times has 4 instead of 2 elements. Whether you want to do this instead of adding two more system calls is a different question. Also note that, in some sense, the inability to set the birthtime forward is a feature. -- Jilles Tjoelker _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
