On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:36:20PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> > Last time I looked at them, things seemed to be in pretty good shape - it
> > wasn't a very large patch series.
>
> Yep, the relative atime patch is tiny and pretty much done - just
> needs some soak time in -mm and a little more review (cc'd Viro and
> fsdevel). Kernel patch against 2.6.18-rc4 appended, patch to mount
> following. (Note that my web server suffered a RAID failure and my
> patches page is unavailable till the restore finishes.)
Well, here's what the ocfs2 patch would look like. If we care to push this
forward, some time in -mm would be nice...
--Mark
From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:13:41 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] ocfs2: relative atime support
Update ocfs2_should_update_atime() to understand the MNT_RELATIME flag and
to test against mtime / ctime accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ocfs2/file.c | 9 +++++++++
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/file.c b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
index 8786b3c..16a9b5e 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/file.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
@@ -154,6 +154,15 @@ int ocfs2_should_update_atime(struct ino
return 0;
now = CURRENT_TIME;
+
+ if (vfsmnt->mnt_flags & MNT_RELATIME) {
+ if ((timespec_compare(&inode->i_atime, &inode->i_mtime) < 0) ||
+ (timespec_compare(&inode->i_atime, &inode->i_ctime) < 0))
+ return 1;
+
+ return 0;
+ }
+
if ((now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec <= osb->s_atime_quantum))
return 0;
else
--
1.4.2.4
-
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
