[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ext4 features
    On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 08:06:10AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
    > > By keeping lazy track of access time it's possible to still have that
    > > data, with minimal disk access cost. And to some people that can be
    > > really useful, such as those of us who have to justify expenditures.
    > What you propose violates both POSIX and SuSv3. close() does not update
    > the atime on a file. I can't see anyone accepting that there is a need
    > for this.

    Nope, it doesn't violate POSIX/SuSv3. The specifications only control
    what happens if the system is cleanly shutdown. What happens on an
    unclean shutdown is explicitly undefined. Hence, lazy atime update
    where there is a "dirty" and "mostly clean" (i.e., atime-dirty) bit,
    and where "mostly clean" inodes are only flushed out to disk when they
    become fully dirty and then written out to disk, or when the
    filesystem is unmounted, or when the filesystem feels like it (i.e.,
    when we need to clear out in-core inodes in response to memory
    pressure), would in fact be completely POSIX/SuSv3 compliant.

    - Ted
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-21 16:39    [W:0.020 / U:161.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site