Re: [PATCH] v3: utimensat implementation

2007-04-27 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:25:00 -0700 Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > there's a little bit of intersection with lutimesat() there. > > I totally forgot about this. Please do not merge the current lutimesat > patch. We have to change it to lutimensat() the same

Re: [PATCH] v3: utimensat implementation

2007-04-27 Thread Ulrich Drepper
Andrew Morton wrote: > there's a little bit of intersection with lutimesat() there. I totally forgot about this. Please do not merge the current lutimesat patch. We have to change it to lutimensat() the same way this new utimensat() improves over futimesat(). Do yo have the broken out patch som

Re: [PATCH] v3: utimensat implementation

2007-04-27 Thread Andrew Morton
urgh. patching file arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S Hunk #1 FAILED at 714. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S.rej patching file fs/compat.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 79. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/compat.c.rej patching file fs/utimes.c Hunk

[PATCH] v3: utimensat implementation

2007-04-26 Thread Ulrich Drepper
One comment I got suggested to clean up the overflow tests. There is no reason to not perform the full micro-second overflow test in those two places. The four conditions are reduced by the compiler to just two tests so there's no problems with performance. Signed-off-by: Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL