Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to Eric Blake on 5/22/2008 6:51 AM: > | According to Jim Meyering on 5/22/2008 6:42 AM: > | |> |> No need to refer the dir by name: > | |> |> > | |> |> futimens (dirfd. timespec); > | |> | > | |> | Btw., even if you don't consider the Posix 200x functions > | |> | futimens/utimensat, you don't need futimsat(dirfd, NULL, timeval): > | |> | > | |> | futimes (dirfd, timeval); > | |> | > | |> | So, actually I think that using futimesat this way is a gratuitous > | |> | utilization of a glibc extension. > | |> > | | > | | Thanks for the write-up. > | | That sounds like the right way to go. > | | Do you feel like doing it? > | > | Yes, I'll be tackling this. > | > > Tested on cygwin 1.7.0, where futimens and utimensat exist, and on cygwin > 1.5.25, where those and futimesat are all missing. OK to apply? This > means that coreutils can now support nanosecond resolution on new enough > kernels for things like touch and cp -p.
Looks fine to me (modulo Bruno's comments, with which I agree). I confirmed it makes touch set/preserve full nanosecond precision on a linux/tmpfs file system. Thanks!
