From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update atime from future. Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:08:28 -0800 Message-ID: <20121203180828.GA30435@kroah.com> References: <1354557399-6202-1-git-send-email-sickamd@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, adilger@dilger.ca To: yangsheng Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1354557399-6202-1-git-send-email-sickamd@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:56:39AM +0800, yangsheng wrote: > Relatime should update the inode atime if it is more than a day in the > future. The original problem seen was a tarball that had a bad atime, > but could also happen if someone fat-fingers a "touch". The future > atime will never be fixed. Before the relatime patch, the future atime > would be updated back to the current time on the next access. > > Only update the atime if it is more than one day in the future. That > avoids thrashing the atime if the clocks on clients of a network fs are > only slightly out of sync, but still allows fixing bogus atimes. > > Signed-off-by: yangsheng > Reviewed-by: adilger@dilger.ca > --- > fs/inode.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to do this properly.