On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 20:42 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Without further analysis, it doesn't tell us much. Does the code attempt >> to open a file O_NOATIME and then fall back to trying it without? > > It's likely: > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680326 Is there any more rationale for the change available? (IMHO only very special applications should use O_NOATIME; if it is not predictable which accesses do/don't update atime, the field completely loses its value. The definition we have is "time of last access" (see (man stat.h) for the POSIX wording), not "time of last user-initiated access" or "time used for $specific_purpose"; given the lack of $specific_purpose it's difficult to say what accesses should/should not be excluded but that's, I think, even more of a reason to stick to the formal definition. OTOH mlocate does use O_NOATIME so that atime isn't updated for every modified directory, and the line in the sand between updatedb and thumbnail generation admittedly isn't all that clear.) Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
