On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:15:14PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:58:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
That's the easy part. How are we going to get mount(8) patched?
Karel, interested in taking a look at the following patch? The kernel
bits are in -mm currently.
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:58:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:36:20 -0800 Valerie Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add relatime (relative atime) support. Relative atime only updates
the atime if the previous atime is older than the mtime or ctime.
Like noatime, but
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 05:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:36:20 -0800 Valerie Henson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Add relatime (relative atime)
support. Relative atime only updates the atime if the previous atime is
older than the mtime or ctime. Like noatime, but useful
if (inode-i_sb-s_flags MS_NOATIME)
return;
So that that one can be deleted.
Hi,
I would mostly expect the compiler to be relatively smart about this and
group a bunch of these tests together... so I rather see readable code
than optimized code for something the
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:36:20PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Last time I looked at them, things seemed to be in pretty good shape - it
wasn't a very large patch series.
Yep, the relative atime patch is tiny and pretty much done - just
needs some soak time in -mm and a little more review
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:36:20 -0800 Valerie Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add relatime (relative atime) support. Relative atime only updates
the atime if the previous atime is older than the mtime or ctime.
Like noatime, but useful for applications like mutt that need to know
when a file has
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:20:27 -0800
Mark Fasheh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update ocfs2_should_update_atime() to understand the MNT_RELATIME flag and
to test against mtime / ctime accordingly.
...
--- a/fs/ocfs2/file.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
@@ -154,6 +154,15 @@ int
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:10:07PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
In the future, I'd like to see a relative atime mode, which functions
in the manner described by Valerie Henson at:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:36:20PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:10:07PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
In the future, I'd like to see a relative atime mode, which functions
in the
