On 10/31/2014 01:31 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: <> > If there is no read on the wire, then there is no way to update the > atime without doing an explicit SETATTR. Courtesy of POSIX filesystem > semantics on the server, that means we get a bonus change attribute > and ctime update (no extra charge). > > Unless there are new suggestions for how to solve the atime issue that > do not involve introducing this or similar regressions, then the > standing NACK applies. > Say the user asks, realy (realy^3) nicely, can we instead of sending SETATTR (BAD) send in its place an async READ of say one byte (or one word) It will do what we want. Just need to collect the updates and atime vs rel-atime correctly, and to not hurt performance as well. (Like only send when no real READS went through) > Cheers > Trond > Cheers Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
