From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B47F29DF7 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:04:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4F0AC00B for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:04:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id MeJKUBLynoYAxXHI (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:04:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:04:09 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: Documenting MS_LAZYTIME Message-ID: <20150227000409.GC17174@thunk.org> References: <54E7578E.4090809@redhat.com> <20150221025636.GB7922@thunk.org> <54EEDE23.6080009@gmail.com> <20150226133113.GD11217@thunk.org> <54EF2161.90607@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54EF2161.90607@gmail.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Linux API , XFS Developers , Linux-Fsdevel , Ext4 Developers List , Linux btrfs Developers List On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:36:33PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > The disadvantage of MS_STRICTATIME | MS_LAZYTIME is that > in the case of a system crash, the atime and mtime fields > on disk might be out of date by at most 24 hours. I'd change to "The disadvantage of MS_LAZYTIME is that..." and perhaps move that so it's clear it applies to any use of MS_LAZYTIME has this as a downside. Does that make sense? - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs