Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Jan-30 01:43:35 -0800, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> Tim Kientzle wrote: >>> For example, a timestamp of 1233295862.000001 >>> (1233295682 seconds and 1000 nanoseconds) >>> will be printed like this by mtree: >>> time=1233295862.1000 >>> Unsurprisingly, the mtree parsing works the same >>> way in reverse. >> Given the age of mtree(8) I guess there are lot of existing mtree specs >> out there who rely on this behavior. > > The existing code to read nanoseconds will handle either the old > format or a %09d format (the for() loop that Tim added is unnecessary) > so existing specs won't have a problem. I think adding leading zeroes > is the correct way to proceed. My point is that it would not restore correct timestamp, not that it would not read it. The 1233295862.000001 before change would become 1233295862.1000 after. I don't know how important is it, but I can imagine some applications where it could be an issue (e.g. incremental backup). -MaximReceived on Fri Jan 30 2009 - 10:38:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:41 UTC