Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:04:34PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> the vfs shouldn't consider it clean, it should consider it
> "atime-only dirty".. with that many of the vfs interaction issues
> ought to go away

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)

adminitedly atime is the only one i can think of now
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/