What's the test coverage for this? xfstest generic/192 tests that
atime is persisted over remounts, which we had a bug with when XFS
used to have a lazy atime implementation somewhat similar to the
proposal.
We should have something similar for c/mtime as well. Also a test to
ensure timestamps
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:07:55AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
What's the test coverage for this? xfstest generic/192 tests that
atime is persisted over remounts, which we had a bug with when XFS
used to have a lazy atime implementation somewhat similar to the
proposal.
We should have
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:57:27AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
If we want to be paranoid, we handle i_version updates non-lazily; I
can see arguments in favor of that.
Ext4 only enables MS_I_VERSION if the user asks for it explicitly, so
it wouldn't cause me any problems. However, xfs and
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:11:45PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:57:27AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
If we want to be paranoid, we handle i_version updates non-lazily; I
can see arguments in favor of that.
Ext4 only enables MS_I_VERSION if the user asks for it
This is an updated version of what had originally been an
ext4-specific patch which significantly improves performance by lazily
writing timestamp updates (and in particular, mtime updates) to disk.
The in-memory timestamps are always correct, but they are only written
to disk when required for
