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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:19:48 +0300
Message-ID: <1435306788.9627.64.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
References: <1433831809.28854.17.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
					 <55769D97.3010602@nod.at> <5577AC03.9060909@cn.fujitsu.com>
					 <1433928078.14092.1.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
					 <55780D1C.6080907@cn.fujitsu.com>
					 <1433931934.14092.11.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
					 <557812A4.8020409@cn.fujitsu.com>
					 <1433934324.14092.15.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
					 <55892D18.3020203@cn.fujitsu.com>
					 <1435056240.7659.69.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
					 <20150624003335.GG22807@dastard> <558BD010.6020207@cn.fujitsu.com>
				 <1435226918.9627.14.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
				 <558BD3B0.8080209@cn.fujitsu.com>
			 <1435231689.9627.17.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
			 <558CA82B.7050306@cn.fujitsu.com>
		 <1435302083.9627.36.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
		 <558CFB96.2000006@cn.fujitsu.com>
	 <1435304624.9627.47.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
	 <558D04B8.5050300@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	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 mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:58382 "EHLO mga09.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751673AbbFZITw (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:19:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <558D04B8.5050300@cn.fujitsu.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 15:52 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> 
> Yes, it's only used in util-linux now. But do you think it's weird
> that:
> -o atime - no atime (we treat it as the default behavior)
> -o noatime - no atime

Yes, it is, and worse, this is inconsistent with other file-systems,
e.g., ext4. So I think I am convinced that with UBIFS_ATIME_SUPPORT
we'll end up with a better overall result.