On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 15:13 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> On 06/26/2015 03:01 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 09:17 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> ...
>
> > This means that if a file-system (e.g., UBIFS or JFFS2) never supported
> > atime, it is harder to add atime support without breaking the old
> > behavior.
> >
> > What if we push the two "set NOATIME flag" lines of code down to
> > individual file-systems, instead of having it at the VFS level?
>
> TO be sure I understand it correctly, do you mean pushing the flags
> parsing work to individual file-systems? Then we can set the default
> behavior in file-system itself.
No, I mean removing these 2 lines from do_mount()
/* Default to relatime */
mnt_flags |= MNT_RELATIME;
and add them to the
struct file_system_type->mount()
of every individual file-system (e.g., ext4_mount()).
> But there is another problem I called as problem 2 in my last mail.
> That we can not distinguish:
> -o - default behavior (*no atime*)
> -o atime - atime support
-o atime does not mean anything from the kernel POW, it is only
user-space tools which may translate it to something meaningful for the
kernel. No file-systems can distinguish these two anyway. So I would say
this is not a problem, people have to use 'strictatime' instead.
What do you think about this as the alternative to the
UBIFS_ATIME_SUPPORT configuration switch, which will introduce
additional churn?
--
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
