Re: utimes/futimes/lutimes syscalls

[Andrew Morton]

Ulrich Drepper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> If
>  there are filesystems which store the sub-seconds on disk I think this
>  is necessary since otherwise all kinds of programs (including archives)
>  cannot be written correctly.  If the sub-seconds only live in memory I
>  still think it would be good to have the syscalls but it would not be
>  that urgent.

XFS (at least) stores nanoseconds on disk.  So yes, I think we should make
this change.