Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 19:48:41 -0700 From: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> To: Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com> Cc: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, rmacklem@freebsd.org Subject: Re: copy_file_range() doesn't update the atime of an empty file Message-ID: <CAOtMX2hHg=ow%2BzsmjVnWQVyCwH0M_Smx5fE5TYdLCax1=ikRKg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAM5tNy70AmgrsLmYPqgiDkPAP10msv77o8E_DzCmiO0LycEnfg@mail.gmail.com> References: <ZR2FUeIhO7DIQIpj@nuc> <CAOtMX2h7QLqLHPm-gUMDJKeR8oyAXssn2vxkJ8xNgBBT6Cc3bw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5tNy72tPBLHM8mkhqkUu64GuLUiZuKFJ%2B2JFsOzVgA1hm0eA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5tNy5nLWf9c%2BnsdxJsU-M9Q3p_VVc%2BnpuY6uwbZPwM6EwhKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5tNy4%2BZZTYQ4QuD_sapx3q%2BQ%2Bwz9uNu6CGL17JFsjN13i0Sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOtMX2jSXLnhjN1JDxk9N_NCjjjKWxguhsb05F4ww9mKwcbSsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5tNy4k%2BfZYC8MVJO5gGf9%2Bo=Fi0sL8ER_kckrwZmi6Fwt9ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5tNy70AmgrsLmYPqgiDkPAP10msv77o8E_DzCmiO0LycEnfg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 6:53=E2=80=AFPM Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com= > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:30=E2=80=AFPM Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.c= om> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:41=E2=80=AFAM Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org= > wrote: > > > > > > I don't think that Linux is a good model to copy from, where atime is > > > concerned. It long ago gave up on POSIX-compliance for atime by > > > default. In this case, I think it's better to stick as closely as we > > > can to read(2). Preserving the existing behavior of tools like cat, > > > too, is worthwhile I think. > > I have no problem with Mark's patch being applied for the default > > local fs case. NFSv4.2 will not be able to comply with this unless > > (as will be the case for the FreeBSD server) the NFSv4.2 server > > happens to change atime after Mark's patch is applied to the > > FreeBSD NFSv4.2 server (the Linux NFSv4.2 server will not). > I have come up with a NFSv4.2 client patch that explicitly sets atime > for the input file in the same compound RPC as the Copy. It works for > a FreeBSD server without Mark's patch. If a NFSv4.2 server does not > do it, we can argue that the server ignores the Setattr of atime. > > So, with this patch (which I will be testing against assorted servers nex= t > week (an ietf bakeathon testing event) and Mark's patch, the only case > that may need more work is ZFS? > > rick > ps: I'll admit I still doubt anyone cares about atime being set, but the > collective opinion seems to be that it should be set. I think the fusefs copy_file_range will already do this, but I should at least add a test for it. -Alan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOtMX2hHg=ow%2BzsmjVnWQVyCwH0M_Smx5fE5TYdLCax1=ikRKg>