Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > Of the two flags, I would say CLOEXEC is the more important one to > respect because it may actually impact correctness (e.g., leaking > descriptors to sub-processes). Whereas O_NOATIME is purely a performance > optimization.
I tend to agree. > I actually wonder if it is worth carrying around the O_NOATIME hack at > all. Yes, I share the thought. We no longer have too many loose objects to matter. I do not mind flipping the order, but I'd prefer to cook the result even longer. I am tempted to suggest we take two step route: - ship 2.11 with the "atime has been there and we won't regress it" shape, while cooking the "cloexec is semantically more important" version in 'next' during the feature freeze - immediately after 2.11 merge it to 'master' for 2.12 to make sure there is no fallout.
