You are right.
As atime and mtime are timestamps and not "live" objects, I understood
their age as being the actual timestamp and thus I understood "mtime is
younger than atime" the other way around.
So this can be a fix for better clarity ("earlier" is used in other
places rather than "younger") but the current comments are not wrong.
On 6/18/19 3:12 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 07:45:40AM +0200, Aurelien Thierry wrote:
>> 2 comments right before code wrongly state that if (c|m)time is younger
>> than atime, then atime is updated (behavior is the other way around).
>>
>> Fix aligns comments with actual behavior, function description and
>> documentation (man mount).
>
> Huh? "mtime is younger than atime" means that mtime refers to the moment
> later than that refered to by atime, i.e that atime refers to the moment
> earlier than that refered to by mtime. What is the problem you are trying
> to fix?
>
> Both the original and changed comments mean exact same thing. And yes,
> the changed comment does match the actual behaviour. Just as the original
> one does...
>
