From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZOiVW-0001Nm-QA for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:32:35 +0000 Message-ID: <1439195531.26877.103.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ubifs: introduce UBIFS_ATIME_SUPPORT to ubifs From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Dongsheng Yang , richard.weinberger@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:32:11 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1438304996-31502-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1438304996-31502-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Could you please describe how you tested your patch. Did you run stress tests with atime enabled, which ones? On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 09:09 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote: > +> > > sb->s_flags |= MS_ACTIVE; > +#ifndef CONFIG_UBIFS_ATIME_SUPPORT > +> > > sb->s_flags |= MS_NOATIME; > +#else > +> > > ubifs_warn(c, "************WARNING START****************"); > +> > > ubifs_warn(c, "Ubifs is supporting atime now, that would"); > +> > > ubifs_warn(c, "probably damage your flash. If you are not"); > +> > > ubifs_warn(c, "sure about it, please set UBIFS_ATIME_SUPPORT"); > +> > > ubifs_warn(c, "to 'N'."); > +> > > ubifs_warn(c, "************WARNING END******************"); Could we please be a little be less scary. 1. I think these starting and ending "*****" lines are unnecessary. 2. Ah, and use "UBIFS", not "Ubifs" please. 3. Let's be shorter, just this should be enough: ubifs_warn("full atime support is enabled, which may wear out your flash faster"); Artem.