Re: [PATCH] Update atime from future.

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the
> future.  The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime,
> but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch".  The future
> atime will never be fixed.  Before the relatime patch, the future atime
> would be updated back to the current time on the next access.
> 
> Only update the atime if it is more than one day in the future.  That
> avoids thrashing the atime if the clocks on clients of a network fs are
> only slightly out of sync, but still allows fixing bogus atimes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: yangsheng <sickamd@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: adilger@xxxxxxxxx
> ---
>  fs/inode.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>
--
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/