On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 22:14 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > 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? http://lwn.net/Articles/244829/ > and the line in the sand between updatedb and thumbnail generation > admittedly isn't all that clear.) Right. I guess we really want O_NOATIME_IF_POSSIBLE. Although I wonder if there's any reason not to just silently ignore O_NOATIME if it's not permitted, rather than force apps to double open(). -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
