* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In your example above, maybe it's the opposite, users know they can > keep a file in /tmp one more week by simply cat'ing it.
sure - and i'm not arguing that noatime should the kernel-wide default. In every single patch i sent it was a .config option (and a boot option _and_ a sysctl option that i think you missed) that a user/distro enables or disabled. But i think the /tmp argument is not very strong: /tmp is fundamentally volatile, and you can grow dependencies on pretty much _any_ aspect of the kernel. So the question isnt "is there impact" (there is, at least for noatime), the question is "is it still worth doing it". > Changing the kernel in a non-easily reversible way is not kind to the > users. none of my patches did any of that... anyway, my latest patch doesnt do noatime, it does the "more intelligent relatime" approach. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/