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 ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
