[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0608051604420.20114@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 16:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <dlang@...italinsight.com>
To: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>
cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...tin.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Valerie Henson <val_henson@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Akkana Peck <akkana@...llowsky.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>, jsipek@...sunysb.edu,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> should it be atime-dirty or non-critical-dirty? (ie. make it more
>> generic to cover cases where we might have other non-critical fields
>> to flush if we can but can tolerate loss if we dont)
> So, just to be sure - we're fine with atime being lost due to crashes,
> errors, etc?
at least as a optional mode of operation yes.
I'm sure someone will want/need the existing 'update atime immediatly', and
there are people who don't care about atime at all (and use noatime), but there
is a large middle ground between them where atime is helpful, but doesn't need
the real-time update or crash protection.
David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists