[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1179403844.13965.2.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:10:44 -0500
From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Cc: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5][TAKE3] fallocate() implementation on i86, x86_64
and powerpc
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 09:40 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:21:16AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:16 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > Please don't make this always happen. c/mtime updates should be dependent
> > > on the mode being used and whether there is visible change to the file. If no
> > > userspace visible changes to the file occurred, then timestamps should not
> > > be changed.
> >
> > i_blocks will be updated, so it seems reasonable to update ctime. mtime
> > shouldn't be changed, though, since the contents of the file will be
> > unchanged.
>
> That's assuming blocks were actually allocated - if the prealloc range already
> has underlying blocks there is no change and so we should not be changing
> mtime either. Only the filesystem will know if it has changed the file, so I
> think that timestamp updates need to be driven down to that level, not done
> blindy at the highest layer....
Yes, I agree.
Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists