On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> should it be atime-dirty or non-critical-dirty? (ie. make it more
> generic to cover cases where we might have other non-critical fields
> to flush if we can but can tolerate loss if we dont)
So, just to be sure - we're fine with atime being lost due to crashes,
errors, etc?
I don't see why not, but I figure it'd be good to make sure there's some
concensus on that.
If that is in fact the case, OCFS2 could do the same thing as XFS and
update disk only when we're going there for some other reason. The only
thing that we would have to add on top of that is a disk write when we're
dropping a cluster lock and the inode is still 'atime-dirty'.
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
Senior Software Developer, Oracle
[email protected]
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
