[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150226133113.GD11217@thunk.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:31:13 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux btrfs Developers List <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Documenting MS_LAZYTIME
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:49:39AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > How about somethign like "This mount significantly reduces writes
> > needed to update the inode's timestamps, especially mtime and actime.
>
> What is "actime" in the preceding line? Should it be "ctime"?
Sorry, no, it should be "atime".
> I find the wording of there a little confusing. Is the following
> a correct rewrite:
>
> The advantage of MS_STRICTATIME | MS_LAZYTIME is that stat(2)
> will return the correctly updated atime, but the atime updates
> will be flushed to disk only when (1) the inode needs to be
> updated for filesystem / data consistency reasons or (2) the
> inode is pushed out of memory, or (3) the filesystem is
> unmounted.)
Yes, that's correct. The only other thing I might add is that in the
case of a crash, the atime (or mtime) fields on disk might be out of
date by at most 24 hours.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists