[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Patch] BME, noatime and nodiratime
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 08:14:18AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ignoring noatime is potentially the only one we should look at, but since
> tty's really _are_ "noatime" as far as the filesystem is concerned, I
> think it makes sense in the situation we are in anyway. The real reason
> for "noatime" is to avoid unnecessary filesystem activity, not that we
> necessarily want a constant atime.

Another thing we are ignoring is r/o. Oh, well - the same arguments apply.

> > There are similar places in some other char drivers. Obvious step would
> > be to have them do file_accessed() instead; however, I'd really like to
> > hear the rationale for existing behaviour. Comments?
> I don't know about other char drivers, those may well be wrong. But for
> tty's in particular, idle time calculations really do pretty much require
> the behaviour (apart from #3 - and #3 is, I think, effectively required by
> not wanting to touch the disk on keyboard accesses).

AFAICS, they simply copy what tty_io.c does. Out of these guys busmouse.c
might have a similar excuse; qtronix.c and sonypi.c AFAICS have no reason
to touch atime at all. No idea what should usb/core/devio.c do...

Anyway, I'm going down right now; expect a patchbomb tonight after I get
some sleep...
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: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.077 / U:5.072 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site