On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Mark Fasheh wrote:
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?
at least as a optional mode of operation yes.
I'm sure someone will want/need the existing 'update atime immediatly', and
there are people who don't care about atime at all (and use noatime), but there
is a large middle ground between them where atime is helpful, but doesn't need
the real-time update or crash protection.
David Lang
-
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]
