Am 09.06.2015 um 08:36 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > 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. I think the rationale behind force_atime was "I know atime can hurt my NAND and I know what I'm doing". :-) Such that possible users think of the consequences. Thanks, //richard -- 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
