From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update atime from future. Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:49:10 +1100 Message-ID: <20121207004910.GD27172@dastard> References: <1354557399-6202-1-git-send-email-sickamd@gmail.com> <20121204202416.GB9451@dastard> <424C1F3A-E96F-485B-BAE5-02CE41C0DBFF@whamcloud.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: yangsheng , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "adilger@dilger.ca" To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <424C1F3A-E96F-485B-BAE5-02CE41C0DBFF@whamcloud.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22:32PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > The point is that the behaviour before the relatime patch was that > the kernel updated the atime to the current time as the kernel > knows about it, it didn't make any decision about "the past" or > "the future". > > Relatime is about reducing the frequency of atime updates, not > about deciding that one timestamp is more correct than another. That makes sense. Indeed, that's what the commit message should say rather than drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about what is a valid atime without further justification. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com