On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 04:54, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Only update the atime if "now" is later than the current value. This
> can happen when the atime gets updated with a fine-grained timestamp
> and then later gets updated using a coarse-grained timestamp.
I pulled this, and then I unpulled it again.
I think this is fundamentally wrong.
If somebody has set the time into the future (for whatever reason -
maybe the clocks were wrong at some point), afaik accessing a file
should reset it, and very much used to do that.
Am I missing something? Because this really seems *horribly* broken garbage.
Any "go from fine-grained back to coarse-grained" situation needs to
explicitly test *that* case.
Not some kind of completely broken "don't update to past value" like this.
Linus
