* Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you try to put the blame into distribution makers' shoes but in > > reality, had the kernel stepped forward with a neat .config option > > sooner (combined with a neat boot option as well to turn it off), > > we'd have had noatime systems 10 years ago. A new entry into > > relnotes and done. It's > > Sorry Ingo, having been in the distribution business for over ten > years I have to disagree. Kernel options that magically totally change > the kernel API and behaviour are exactly what a vendor does *NOT* want > to have.
it's default off of course. A distro can turn it on or off. > > Distro makers did not dare to do this sooner because some kernel > > developers came forward with these mostly bogus arguments ... The > > impact of atime is far better understood by the kernel community, so > > it is the responsibility of _us_ to signal such things towards > > distributors, not the other way around. > > You are trying to put a bogus divide between kernel community and > developer community. Yet you know perfectly well that a large part of > the kernel community yourself included work for distribution vendors > and are actively building the distribution kernels. i've periodically pushed for a noatime distro kernel for like ... 5-10 years and last time this argument came up [i brought it up 6 months ago] most of the distro kernel developer actually recommended using noatime, but it took only 1-2 kernel developers to come out with the 'compatibility' and 'compliance' boogeyman to scare the distro userspace people away from changing /etc/fstab. so yes, things like this needs a clear message from the kernel folks, and a kernel option for that is a pretty good way of doing it. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/