[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081129123220.67fd1e6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:32:20 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
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 v2 2/2] relatime: Allow making relatime the default
behaviour
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:02:45 +0000 Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 06:56:45PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > I don't see why there is an objection to per-mountpoint.
> > Andrew Morton's syntax: mount /dev/foo /mnt/bar -o relatime=86400
> > looks natural to me.
>
> If somebody feels that this functionality would be useful, they're
> welcome to write it.
If someone writes it, I'll merge it.
> A global default doesn't preclude per-mountpoint
> settings. This patch makes the existing kernel code more useful and so
> is worthwhile on its own, even if it doesn't scratch everyone's itch.
The standard, usual, expected way of modifying a filesystem's behaviour
is via mount options. This is also quite flexible.
Is there some extraordinary reason why the standard interface is not to
be used here?
--
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