From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update atime from future. Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:24:17 +1100 Message-ID: <20121204202416.GB9451@dastard> 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: Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:53843 "EHLO ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751943Ab2LDUYU (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:24:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1354557399-6202-1-git-send-email-sickamd@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. So if someone accidentally changes time back a few days, access times go backwards for everything? That doesn't sound right to me - it's going to seriously screw up backups and other scanners that use atime to determine "newly accessed files".... IMO, if you fat-finger a manual atime update or use atimes direct from tarballs, then that's your problem as a user and not the responsibility of the kernel to magically fix for you.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com