Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:55:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG>, fs@FreeBSD.ORG, mckusick@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "notime fix" (forw) what do you think of this? Message-ID: <3CBEC25D.7921E743@mindspring.com> References: <20020418161400.J13884-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > > it's a hack to make ufs_vnops update atime if it is going > > to update mtime or ctime. > > This is just wrong. atime is the time of last access. POSIX says when > it is set. POSIX doesn't seem to say explicity that it shall not be > set gratuitously, but POLA says that. I think the net effect here is an attempt to get "marked for update" rather than "updated" semantics. This is still kind of bad. I don't think your approach would work any better than Alfred's, unfortunately, since his intent is to make "make" work as expected on volumes mounted noatime (e.g. he probably mounted /usr/ports noatime for the install, and left it that way). It's really a kind of bogus thing to want to do, either way. "Some guarantees" is really non-intuitive. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CBEC25D.7921E743>