On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22:32PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> The point is that the behaviour before the relatime patch was that
> the kernel updated the atime to the current time as the kernel
> knows about it, it didn't make any decision about "the past" or
> "the future".
>
> Relatime is
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22:32PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The point is that the behaviour before the relatime patch was that
the kernel updated the atime to the current time as the kernel
knows about it, it didn't make any decision about the past or
the future.
Relatime is about
On 2012-12-04, at 13:24, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
>> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
>> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
>> but could also happen if someone
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
> but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
> atime will never be
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
> but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
> atime will never be
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a touch. The future
atime will never be fixed.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a touch. The future
atime will never be fixed.
On 2012-12-04, at 13:24, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
but could also happen if
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
> but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
> atime will never be
Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
atime will never be fixed. Before the relatime patch, the future atime
would be updated
Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a touch. The future
atime will never be fixed. Before the relatime patch, the future atime
would be updated
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a touch. The future
atime will never be fixed.
12 matches
Mail list logo
