On 2012-12-15, at 19:15, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:25:23PM +0800, ys wrote: >> From 3d56c131b58a21c05bcd677b9d2ba915abcbf195 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: yangsheng <sickamd@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:46:22 +0800 >> Subject: [PATCH] vfs: update atimes over one day in the past or future >> >> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than one day >> in the future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had >> a bad atime in the distant future, but could also happen if someone >> fat-fingers a "touch". The future atime will never be fixed. >> >> Without relatime enabled, a future atime is updated to the current >> kernel time on access. Relatime is meant to reduce the frequency >> of atime updates, not decide if whether the system clock or the >> inode timestamp is correct or not. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Sheng <sickamd@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: David Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > No I didn't. Please don't add tags that someone has not added > directly in a reply to the original patch. That's my fault. I thought you'd OK'd the patch with the revised commit comment. >> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> --- >> fs/inode.c | 7 ++++--- >> 1 ??????????????????????????? 4 ???(+)????????? 3 ???(-) > > There's something wrong with the character encoding you are using... Chinese locale, but probably doesn't matter since text below "---" isn't in the commit anyway? >> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c >> index 14084b7..8713dc8 100644 >> --- a/fs/inode.c >> +++ b/fs/inode.c >> @@ -1488,10 +1488,11 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode, >> return 1; >> >> /* >> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes, >> - * update atime: >> + * Update atime if it's older than a day or more than a day >> + * in the future, which we assume is corrupt. >> + * > > A time in the future is not a corruption - the comment should > reflect exactly what you've put in the commit message. i.e. that > relatime is for reducing updates, not preventing atime from ever > moving backwards. Ok. > Also, you've added an extra line of whitespace damage that doesn't > need to be there..... > > FWIW, could you write a test for xfstests for this behaviour > so we can confirm that we don't break it in future? Sure, I'll take a crack at that. 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
