On Fri 28-11-14 13:14:21, Ted Tso wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:23:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Hum, when someone calls fsync() for an inode, you likely want to sync
timestamps to disk even if everything else is clean. I think that doing
what you did in last version:
dirty =
On 12/02/2014 02:58 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Fri 28-11-14 13:14:21, Ted Tso wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:23:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Hum, when someone calls fsync() for an inode, you likely want to sync
timestamps to disk even if everything else is clean. I think that doing
what you did
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 07:55:48PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
This I do not understand. I thought that I_DIRTY_TIME, and the all
lazytime mount option, is only for atime. So if there are dirty
pages then there are also m/ctime that changed and surly we want to
write these times to disk ASAP.
On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 07:55:48PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
This I do not understand. I thought that I_DIRTY_TIME, and the all
lazytime mount option, is only for atime. So if there are dirty
pages then there are also m/ctime
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is touch/utimes()/utimensat(). Those
should definitely not result in timestamps being kept only in memory
for 24h, since the whole point of those calls is to update the times.
It makes sense for
