On 06/10/2015 05:21 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 11:16 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
Therefore, I introduced a new option named as force_atime in ubifs.
That's a ubifs-dependent opiton and it works as a main switch, in
a higher level compared with atime and noatime. If force_atime, we
support the atime-related flags. Otherwise, we don't care about all of
them in flags and don't support atime anyway.
How bad is it to just default to relatime like other file-systems do,
comparing to what we have now?
Ha, yes, that's a problem. I read it from wiki that the author think
it's bad for ubifs. But I did not do a measure about it.
In theory, yes, lots of writing would damage the flash. So I think
just make it optional to user is a flexible way to do it. Even we
want to make the default to relatime, I think it's better to keep
the compatibility for a period and provide a force_atime to user.
When lots of users said "okey, we are mostly choosing force_atime in our
use cases.". I believe that's a safe way to make ubifs supporting
atime by default.
.
--
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
