On Friday 26 January 2007 21:41, Andrew Morton wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that this wasn't done earlier. I wonder if there's > some subtle reason why this won't work. How well tested is this?
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/utimes.html lists a slight difference between utime and utimes in the handling of EPERM/EACCESS: > The utimes() function shall fail if: > [EACCES] Search permission is denied by a component of the path prefix; > or the times argument is a null pointer and the effective user ID of the > process does not match the owner of the file and write access is denied. > [EPERM] The times argument is not a null pointer and the calling process' > effective user ID has write access to the file but does not match the > owner of the file and the calling process does not have the appropriate > privileges. > > The utime() function shall fail if: > [EACCES] Search permission is denied by a component of the path prefix; > or the times argument is a null pointer and the effective user ID of the > process does not match the owner of the file, the process does not have > write permission for the file, and the process does not have appropriate > privileges. > [EPERM] The times argument is not a null pointer and the calling process' > effective user ID does not match the owner of the file and the calling > process does not have the appropriate privileges. I don't really understand how that should be implemented in different ways, but it might be the reason that we have separate functions. Arnd <>< - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
