On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22:32PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> The point is that the behaviour before the relatime patch was that
> the kernel updated the atime to the current time as the kernel
> knows about it, it didn't make any decision about "the past" or
> "the future".
>
> Relatime is ab
On 2012-12-04, at 13:24, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
>> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
>> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
>> but could also happen if someone fat-fing
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
> but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
> atime will never be fi
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
> but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
> atime will never be fi
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
> future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
> but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
> atime will never be fi
Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future
atime will never be fixed. Before the relatime patch, the future atime
would be updated
6 matches
Mail list logo
