On 2011-01-04, at 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:56:58 +0800, yangsheng said: >> If atime has been wrong set to future, then it cannot >> be updated back to current time. >> >> +#define RELATIME_MARGIN (24 * 60 * 60) > > Nice patch overall. Should this be a #define, or a CONFIG_ variable, > or a tweakable /proc/sys/fs variable? Or am I senile and we thrashed > all this out once before when the relatime code landed? I recall the consensus was that a /proc tunable was "too much" for the initial patch. An atime update interval of 1 day is sufficient for most applications, since they run daily to do file access scanning. The #define was added because I dislike having multiple hard-coded values in any code. I haven't heard of any complaints about the relatime update frequency, except for this "atime in the future" problem, so until that happens we may as well leave it as-is. Cheers, Andreas -- 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
