lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.019 / U:90.824 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site