linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] relatime: Make relatime smarter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081128134055.GQ25548@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:40:55 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, val.henson@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] relatime: Make relatime smarter

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:18:09AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The time between atime updates can be configured at boot
> > with the relatime_interval kernel argument, or at runtime through a sysctl.
> 
> Shouldn't it be a per-mount value, with defaults coming from the sysctl?

Perhaps a more sensible question would be "Why make it configurable at
all?"  What's wrong with hardcoding 24 hours?  Or, to put it another
way, who wants to change it from 24 hours, and why?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/