From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dongsheng Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ubifs: Introduce a mount option of force_atime. Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:10:36 +0800 Message-ID: <55780D1C.6080907@cn.fujitsu.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> <1433928078.14092.1.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Richard Weinberger , , , To: Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:63083 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751615AbbFJKPj (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:15:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1433928078.14092.1.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/10/2015 05:21 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > 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? Ha, yes, that's a problem. I read it from wiki that the author think it's bad for ubifs. But I did not do a measure about it. In theory, yes, lots of writing would damage the flash. So I think just make it optional to user is a flexible way to do it. Even we want to make the default to relatime, I think it's better to keep the compatibility for a period and provide a force_atime to user. When lots of users said "okey, we are mostly choosing force_atime in our use cases.". I believe that's a safe way to make ubifs supporting atime by default. > > . >