From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ubifs: Introduce a mount option of force_atime.
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:22:59 +0800
Message-ID: <558D0BE3.7090502@cn.fujitsu.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>	 <1435304624.96
 27.47.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>	 <558D04B8.5050300@cn.fujitsu.com> <1435306788.9627.64.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
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: <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:5035 "EHLO
	heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751379AbbFZI2X (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:28:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1435306788.9627.64.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On 06/26/2015 04:19 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> 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.

Great!! Then I will plan to do it later.

Thanx for you patience on this proposal :).

>
>