Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-12 Thread Petri Kaukasoina
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:49:39PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >The one problem with noatime is that mutt's 'new mail arrived' breaks > > Just why does not it use mtime then to check for New Mail Arrived, like I have always used: --enable-buffy-sizeUse file size attribute instead o

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-12 Thread Valerie Henson
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:53:18PM +0200, Petri Kaukasoina wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:49:39PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > >The one problem with noatime is that mutt's 'new mail arrived' breaks > > > > Just why does not it use mtime then to check for New Mail Arrived, like > > I hav

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-12 Thread Valerie Henson
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:40:10AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > The one problem with noatime is that mutt's 'new mail arrived' breaks > as you mentioned in the relatime changelog, so I'm surprised that > they turned it on by default. With relatime fixing that however, > I'm also unaware of anythi

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-12 Thread Jörn Engel
On Mon, 12 February 2007 18:49:39 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Feb 12 2007 10:40, Dave Jones wrote: > > > >The one problem with noatime is that mutt's 'new mail arrived' breaks > > Just why does not it use mtime then to check for New Mail Arrived, like > bash does? Just a guess: because it

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-12 Thread Jan Engelhardt
Hi, On Feb 12 2007 10:40, Dave Jones wrote: > > > Whilst on the subject of RELATIME, is there any good reason why > > > not to make this a default mount option ? > > > > Ubuntu has been shipping with noatime as the default for some time > > now, with no obvious problems (I'm running Ubuntu). I s

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-12 Thread Dave Jones
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:55:04PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 07:54:00PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > Whilst on the subject of RELATIME, is there any good reason why > > not to make this a default mount option ? > > Ubuntu has been shipping with noatime as th

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-11 Thread Valerie Henson
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 07:54:00PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > Whilst on the subject of RELATIME, is there any good reason why > not to make this a default mount option ? Ubuntu has been shipping with noatime as the default for some time now, with no obvious problems (I'm running Ubuntu). I see

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-11 Thread Valerie Henson
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:56:07AM -0800, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Val, > > I'm just updating the mount(2) man page for MS_RELATIME, and this is the > text I've come up with: > >MS_RELATIME(Since Linux 2.6.20) > When a file on this file system is accessed, only >

Re: Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-10 Thread Dave Jones
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:56:07AM -0800, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Val, > > I'm just updating the mount(2) man page for MS_RELATIME, and this is the > text I've come up with: > >MS_RELATIME(Since Linux 2.6.20) > When a file on this file system is accessed, only >

Documenting MS_RELATIME

2007-02-10 Thread Michael Kerrisk
Val, I'm just updating the mount(2) man page for MS_RELATIME, and this is the text I've come up with: MS_RELATIME(Since Linux 2.6.20) When a file on this file system is accessed, only update the file's last accessed time (atime) if the current va