From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Z1tqa-0000s1-A1 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:00:00 +0000 Message-ID: <5575667F.5020604@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:55:11 +0800 From: Dongsheng Yang MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Introduce a mount option of force_atime. References: <1433752038-17276-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1433755985.28854.3.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1433755985.28854.3.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: richard@nod.at, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/08/2015 05:33 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 16:27 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote: >> Currently, ubifs does not support access time anyway. I understand >> that there is a overhead to update inode in each access from user. >> >> But for the following two reasons, I think we can make it optional >> to user. >> >> (1). More and more flash storage in server are trying to use ubifs, >> it is not only for a device such as mobile phone any more, we want >> to use it in more and more generic way. Then we need to compete >> with some other main filesystems. From this point, access time is >> necessary to us, at least as a choice to user currently. > > Hi, > > Could you please re-send this patch with the following list in CC: > > linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Okey, thanx > > This patch will probably need VFS-scope discussion, this is why I am > asking to CC the general linux file-systems development mailing list. > > Thanks! > > . >