From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ubifs: Introduce a mount option of force_atime.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:21:18 +0300
Message-ID: <1433928078.14092.1.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
References: <1433758060-18614-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
	 <1433831809.28854.17.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <55769D97.3010602@nod.at>
	 <5577AC03.9060909@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	adrian.hunter@intel.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:59026 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754142AbbFJJVW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 05:21:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5577AC03.9060909@cn.fujitsu.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 11:16 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> Therefore, I introduced a new option named as force_atime in ubifs.
> That's a ubifs-dependent opiton and it works as a main switch, in
> a higher level compared with atime and noatime. If force_atime, we
> support the atime-related flags. Otherwise, we don't care about all of
> them in flags and don't support atime anyway.

How bad is it to just default to relatime like other file-systems do,
comparing to what we have now?