Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime

From: David Lang
Date: Sat Aug 05 2006 - 19:09:27 EST

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at