On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If you have software that actually depends on atimes, then that software is > broken (and yes, I even feel this way about Mutt). The way atimes are > implemented on most systems breaks the semantics that almost everyone > expects from them, because they get updated for anything that even looks > sideways at the inode from across the room. Most software that uses them > expects them to answer the question 'When were the contents of this file > last read?', but they can get updated even for stuff like calculating file > sizes, listing directory contents, or modifying the file's metadata. This Jonathan Corbet article still applies: http://lwn.net/Articles/397442/ What a mess! Hey. The 5 year anniversary was in July. Wanna bring it up again, Austin? Haha. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cifs/294 Users want file creation time. Specifically, an immutable time for that file that persists across file system copies. The time of its first occurrence on a particular volume is not useful information. Getting that requires what seems to be an unlikely consensus. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
