On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 18:07 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote: > Currently, ubifs does not support access time anyway. I understand > that there is a overhead to update inode in each access from user. > > But for the following two reasons, I think we can make it optional > to user. > > (1). More and more flash storage in server are trying to use ubifs, > it is not only for a device such as mobile phone any more, we want > to use it in more and more generic way. Then we need to compete > with some other main filesystems. From this point, access time is > necessary to us, at least as a choice to user currently. > > (2). The default mount option about atime is relatime currently, > it's much relaxy compared with strictatime. Then we don't update > the inode in any accessing. So the overhead is not too much. > It's really acceptable. > > Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > It's a RESEND patch to cc to fsdevel as Artem suggested. > I would rename force_atime to enable_atime in next version. Why do you need to introduce a custom "force_atime" option if there are already standard "atime" and "noatime" mount option? I am fine with adding atime support to UBIFS in general, and I'd expect this behavior then. 1. mount -t ubifs ... - no atime by default 2. mount -t ubifs -o noatime ... - same as above 3. mount -t ubifs -o atime - support atime 4. mount -t ubifs -o rlatime - support relatime and so on for as many atime update strategies you want to support. -- 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
