Hi Steve,
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > In the future, I'd like to see a "relative atime" mode, which functions
> > in the manner described by Valerie Henson at:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/25/380
> >
> I'd like to second that. [adding Val Henson to the "to"] What (if
> anything) remains to be done before the relative atime patch is ready to
> go upstream? I'm happy to help out here if required,
Last time I looked at them, things seemed to be in pretty good shape - it
wasn't a very large patch series.
The thing is (I'm going from memory here), gfs2 and ocfs2 are likely to just
make use of the option parsing (and setting of the MNT_RELATIME flag), and
ignore the changes to touch_atime() since we we handle our own atime
updates.
Overall I think it's a matter of pushing the patches to the kernel and to
mount(8). For ocfs2/gfs2 we implement a small amount of the logic in our
"lock and update atime" functions.
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
Senior Software Developer, Oracle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
