Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:55:34 +0000 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: ext3 IO latency measurements (was: Linux 2.6.29) |
| |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:42:09PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > before performing the update. So while relatime doesn't conform, the > > practical difference is meaningless. You can't depend on atime being > > updated in a timely manner. > > POSIX says a disk write interrupted by a signal can be a short write. If > you do this in practice all hell breaks loose. > > A conforming implementation needs to conform with expectations not just > play lawyer games with users systems.
I agree, but arguing for something on the basis of a spec isn't terribly convincing if the spec allows effectively identical behaviour. SuS isn't a relevant consideration when it comes to deciding default atime policy.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |