On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:15:14PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:58:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > That's the easy part. How are we going to get mount(8) patched?
>
> Karel, interested in taking a look at the following patch? The kernel
> bits are in -mm curren
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:58:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That's the easy part. How are we going to get mount(8) patched?
Karel, interested in taking a look at the following patch? The kernel
bits are in -mm currently.
-VAL
Add the "relatime" (relative atime) option support to mount.
>
> > if (inode->i_sb->s_flags & MS_NOATIME)
> > return;
> So that that one can be deleted.
Hi,
I would mostly expect the compiler to be relatively smart about this and
group a bunch of these tests together... so I rather see readable code
than optimized code for something the
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 05:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:36:20 -0800 Valerie Henson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Add "relatime" (relative atime)
> > support. Relative atime only updates the atime if the previous atime is
> > older than the mtime or ctime. Like noatime,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:58:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:36:20 -0800 Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Add "relatime" (relative atime) support. Relative atime only updates
> > the atime if the previous atime is older than the mtime or ctime.
> > Like noa
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:20:27 -0800
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Update ocfs2_should_update_atime() to understand the MNT_RELATIME flag and
> to test against mtime / ctime accordingly.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
> @@ -154,6 +154,15 @@ int ocfs2_should_upda
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:36:20 -0800 Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Add "relatime" (relative atime) support. Relative atime only updates
> the atime if the previous atime is older than the mtime or ctime.
> Like noatime, but useful for applications like mutt that need to know
> when a
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:36:20PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> > Last time I looked at them, things seemed to be in pretty good shape - it
> > wasn't a very large patch series.
>
> Yep, the relative atime patch is tiny and pretty much done - just
> needs some soak time in -mm and a little more
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:36:20PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:10:07PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > > > In the future, I'd like to see a "relative atime" mode, which functions
>
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:10:07PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +, 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
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +, 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
Hi,
On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 12:31 -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> This e-mail describes the OCFS2 patches which I intend to push
> upstream to Linus for 2.6.20.
>
> * Atime updates - thanks to Tiger Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ocfs2 now
> writes to the inode atime field. This doesn't require any disk c
This e-mail describes the OCFS2 patches which I intend to push
upstream to Linus for 2.6.20.
* Various ocfs2 cleanups, including a patchset by me intended to clean up
some of the internal ocfs2 journal api. Mostly this revolves around
removing the ocfs2_journal_handle wrapper around handle_t.
13 matches
Mail list logo
