[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.2 on cygwin
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.2 on cygwin |
Date: |
04 Apr 2004 19:24:22 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
>> Actually no: I meant ctime.
>> mtime can be tweaked with touch, so you can't rely on it if you want to
>> be safe. But admittedly, CVS relies on exclusively on mtime (not even the
>> size) and problems related to that have been extremely rare.
> hardlinking updates ctime. ctime cannot be used.
Ah... good point.
>> That can happen while keeping the inode constant as well.
> not without deliberate intervention a la touch. We're not aiming to
> prevent people shooting their own foot off. We're trying to provide
> sights so that they know when they've pointed the gun at said foot.
Then why in the world check the device number?
>> > All of the "changes" and "file diffs" will produce faulty output if the
>> > basis for comparison is corrupt.
>> Sure. Corruption can and does happen without changing any inode number,
>> mtime, or size.
> Oh? (Not disk random bits changing though - that disk sector checksums
> are for).
Checksums aren't always sufficient, but more seriously, OS bugs or crashes
or mishandling that end up wrongly overwriting a sector are definitely
part of the real world, tho very rare.
I still haven't seen a definition of which kinds of corruption we're trying
to defend ourselves against. BTW many/most programs are perfectly happy
with just an mtime check.
Stefan
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.2 on cygwin,
Stefan Monnier <=