[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] fts: introduce FTS_NOATIME

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fts: introduce FTS_NOATIME
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:06:48 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.10

On 07/08/2011 12:03 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 07/08/11 10:27, Eric Blake wrote:
>> if O_NOATIME is 0, --noatime should be rejected as an outright
>> impossibility.
>> if O_NOATIME is non-zero, --noatime should enable FTS_NOATIME, but only
>> as a best-effort (that is, the option is silently ignored where the
>> kernel is too old),
> If --noatime is silently ignored in the latter case,
> shouldn't it also be silently ignored in the former?
> That would be more consistent across platforms.

I'm 50-50.  The thought that I had was that if we can easily detect that
O_NOATIME is unsupported, then being explicit about the error might prod
more systems into implementing it (I don't know if anyone else besides
Linux has this extension yet; Cygwin has a non-zero O_NOATIME, but it is
currently a no-op to allow source compatibility and not an actual impact
on behavior).

On the other hand, it's hard to tell if O_NOATIME is supported on Linux,
or if cygwin ever fixes O_NOTIME to work, your argument for consistency
to other platforms is tempting...

Anyone else want to chime in and sway the decision?

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]