From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:03:04 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8 2/4] Update ctime and mtime for memory-mapped files In-Reply-To: <12010440822957-git-send-email-salikhmetov@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <12010440803930-git-send-email-salikhmetov@gmail.com> <12010440822957-git-send-email-salikhmetov@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Anton Salikhmetov Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, jakob@unthought.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, riel@redhat.com, ksm@42.dk, staubach@redhat.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, akpm@linux-foundation.org, protasnb@gmail.com, miklos@szeredi.hu, r.e.wolff@bitwizard.nl, hidave.darkstar@gmail.com, hch@infradead.org List-ID: On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Anton Salikhmetov wrote: > > Update ctime and mtime for memory-mapped files at a write access on > a present, read-only PTE, as well as at a write on a non-present PTE. Ok, this one I'm applying. I agree that it leaves MS_ASYNC not updating the file until the next sync actually happens, but I can't really bring myself to care at least for an imminent 2.6.24 thing. The file times are actually "correct" in the sense that they will now match when the IO is done, and my man-page says that MS_ASYNC "schedules the io to be done". And I think this is better than we have now, and I don't think this part is somethign that anybody really disagrees with. We can (and should) keep the MS_ASYNC issue open. Linus -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org