Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:52:38 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: David Greenman <dg@root.com>, "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu>, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: exec() doesn't update access time Message-ID: <20010726145238.I15667@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20010726120917.A93478@walton.maths.tcd.ie>; from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie on Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 12:09:17PM %2B0100 References: <rminnich@lanl.gov> <200107252013.QAA00335@cs.rpi.edu> <20010725142519.D14981@nexus.root.com> <20010726120917.A93478@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 12:09:17PM +0100, David Malone wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:25:19PM -0700, David Greenman wrote: > > Guessing, I think the correct fix is probably to set the IN_ACCESS flag in > > ufs_open() [and similarly with other filesystems where this makes sense] if > > the filesystem is not mounted with the noatime flag. However, I'm not sure > > of the symantics of the access time in the relavent standards, and I seem > > to recall Bruce saying that it was incorrect to indicate an access on just > > an open(), but I may be mistaken. > > Wouldn't setting the access time on open mess up the "last read > time" for people's mail boxes when mail was delivered? I think people are only discussing updating atime on exec(), not on all open()'s. I do not really believe you are trying to execute your mailboxes :) G'luck, Peter -- Hey, out there - is it *you* reading me, or is it someone else? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010726145238.I15667>