>I would never have picked it up without having it pointed out to me.
to be fair, in one of the system include files it was commented as
ino.h: time_t di_ctime; /* time created */
but it was only a comment. stat(2) was more accurate.
On Thu Jan 22 14:33:05 EST 2009, 9f...@hamnavoe.com wrote:
> > will the real creation time please stand up.
>
> October 23, 4004 BC.
so when we add 8-byte times to 9p2010 Tstat
and Wstat, we can add a constant ctime field of
-188466825600? or should that just be hardcoded?
- erik
> will the real creation time please stand up.
October 23, 4004 BC.
> Does Plan 9 really not provide for file creation?
no, but it wasn't really creation on unix but inode change.
> useful or not, traditional unix ctime never gave the creation time
> anyway - it gave inode modification time, which isn't the
> same thing at all: it's updated when you do a chmod.
Well, that is understandable, if contrary to the principle of least
astonishment. Thank you for that gem, I would
On Thu Jan 22 13:17:59 EST 2009, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
> 2009/1/22 :
> > I do wonder why this field was sacrificed in the file system(s) and
> > 9P*?
>
> useful or not, traditional unix ctime never gave the creation time
> anyway - it gave inode modification time, which isn't the
> same thing
2009/1/22 :
> I do wonder why this field was sacrificed in the file system(s) and
> 9P*?
useful or not, traditional unix ctime never gave the creation time
anyway - it gave inode modification time, which isn't the
same thing at all: it's updated when you do a chmod.
On Thu Jan 22 12:54:14 EST 2009, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > use the dump, luke. ☺
>
> If there was an easy, foolproof way to scan the dump by filename, I
> presume I could search for the earliest instance and consider that the
> time of creation. Not entirely viable, is it?
it's hard to giv
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:50 AM, wrote:
>> use the dump, luke. ☺
>
> If there was an easy, foolproof way to scan the dump by filename, I
> presume I could search for the earliest instance and consider that the
> time of creation. Not entirely viable, is it?
>
history(1)
http://plan9.bell-labs
> use the dump, luke. ☺
If there was an easy, foolproof way to scan the dump by filename, I
presume I could search for the earliest instance and consider that the
time of creation. Not entirely viable, is it?
I do wonder why this field was sacrificed in the file system(s) and
9P*?
Or am I dream
On Thu Jan 22 12:41:10 EST 2009, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> Does Plan 9 really not provide for file creation?
>
> typedef
> struct Dir {
> /* system-modified data */
> ushort type; /* server type */
> uintdev;/* server subtype */
11 matches
Mail list logo
