Re: utimes/futimes/lutimes syscalls

[Nikita Danilov]

Andrew Morton writes:
 > 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.

so does reiser4.

 > -

Nikita.