On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 14:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The issue Alan raised around the superblock timestamp is still up in > the air. I guess he's a slow typist ;) > > My take is "no, we don't need to do that any more" - surely all Linux > systems have a functional hardware clock. But the changelog should be > updated to describe and justify the decision. > While I do trust such system existed and may be even still exist, I doubt that Linux sysv FS implementation is of any help for them because it updates the superblock time-stamp _only_ if there was write activity, otherwise it does not. So you cannot rely on our time-stamps at all anyway. My patches just make it update the time-stamp more rarely. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
