From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ew0-f223.google.com ([209.85.219.223]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Nh1eu-0006tQ-VZ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:10:52 +0000 Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so438856ewy.4 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:10:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1265726904.2006.157.camel@localhost> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:10:42 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: noatime and nodiratime for ubifs mounting From: twebb To: dedekind1@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>> To minimize unnecessary writes to UBIFS, does it make sense to mount >>> with the noatime and nodiratime flags? =A0Some information I've read >>> suggests that this helps minimize writes and is beneficial to >>> flash-based filesystems. =A0Is there any downside to using these flags? >> >> UBIFS does not support atime anyway: >> >> http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubifs.html#L_atime >> > > Thanks. =A0Sorry, I hadn't seen that specific question. > > Does that mean UBIFS also doesn't support 'diratime'? > Sorry to ask again, but does no "atime" support mean no "diratime" either for UBIFS?