On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 08:57:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In your example above, maybe it's the opposite, users know they can > > keep a file in /tmp one more week by simply cat'ing it. > > sure - and i'm not arguing that noatime should the kernel-wide default. > In every single patch i sent it was a .config option (and a boot option > _and_ a sysctl option that i think you missed) that a user/distro > enables or disabled. But i think the /tmp argument is not very strong: > /tmp is fundamentally volatile, and you can grow dependencies on pretty > much _any_ aspect of the kernel. So the question isnt "is there impact" > (there is, at least for noatime), the question is "is it still worth > doing it". > > > Changing the kernel in a non-easily reversible way is not kind to the > > users. > > none of my patches did any of that...
I did not notice you talked about a sysctl. A sysctl provides the ability to switch the behaviour without rebooting, while both the config option and the command line require a reboot. > anyway, my latest patch doesnt do noatime, it does the "more intelligent > relatime" approach. ... which is not equivalent noatime in the initial example. Regards, Willy - 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/