On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote: > Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the > future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime, > but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future > atime will never be fixed. Before the relatime patch, the future atime > would be updated back to the current time on the next access. > > Only update the atime if it is more than one day in the future. That > avoids thrashing the atime if the clocks on clients of a network fs are > only slightly out of sync, but still allows fixing bogus atimes. > > Signed-off-by: yangsheng <sickamd@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: adilger@xxxxxxxxx > --- > fs/inode.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) <formletter> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to do this properly. </formletter> -- 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
