[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:1.9.2.17) 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 http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature