Re: [patch?] truncate and timestamps

[Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)]

On Gwe, 2003-05-23 at 02:17, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
> Andries had shown that there is _no_ consensus.  Ergo, POSIX can take
> a hike and we should go with the behaviour convenient for us.  It's that
> simple...

Skipping the update on a truncate not changing size is a performance win
although not a very useful one. I don't think we can ignore the standard
however. For one it simply means all the vendors have to fix it so they
can sell to Government etc. 

Now we can certainly put the fix in -every- vendor tree on the planet
and not base, I'm just not sure for something so trivial it isnt better
just to fix it to the spec *or* beat the spec authors up to fix the
spec.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/