* 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...
anyway, my latest patch doesnt do noatime, it does the "more intelligent
relatime" approach.
Ingo
-
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]
