| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20081128134712.GC5058@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:47:12 +0000 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>, 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 06:40:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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? There's approximately no cost to it, and arguably use cases that would benefit. I don't think they'd be common enough to benefit from the additional complexity of making it per-mount. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org -- 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