On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > should it be atime-dirty or non-critical-dirty? (ie. make it more > generic to cover cases where we might have other non-critical fields > to flush if we can but can tolerate loss if we dont) So, just to be sure - we're fine with atime being lost due to crashes, errors, etc? I don't see why not, but I figure it'd be good to make sure there's some concensus on that. If that is in fact the case, OCFS2 could do the same thing as XFS and update disk only when we're going there for some other reason. The only thing that we would have to add on top of that is a disk write when we're dropping a cluster lock and the inode is still 'atime-dirty'. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh Senior Software Developer, Oracle mark.fasheh@xxxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
