Hi, On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:58 +0800, yangsheng wrote: > Signed-off-by: sickamd@xxxxxxxxx > --- > fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c > index da85e56..6c8effd 100644 > --- a/fs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/inode.c > @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode, > return 1; > > /* > - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes, > + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes, > + * update atime: > + */ > + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < 0) > + return 1; > + /* > + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes, > * update atime: > */ > if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60) I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the future for exactly this reason, Steve. -- 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
