[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F2657BD.8030208@sx.jp.nec.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:41:33 +0900
From: Kazuya Mio <k-mio@...jp.nec.com>
To: ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ext3: Don't update ctime in ext3_splice_branch()
VFS handles updating ctime, so we don't need to update i_ctime
in ext3_splace_branch().
I backport the following patch for ext3:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=124505184027078&w=4
Signed-off-by: Kazuya Mio <k-mio@...jp.nec.com>
---
fs/ext3/inode.c | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext3/inode.c b/fs/ext3/inode.c
index 2d0afec..95cb0d1 100644
--- a/fs/ext3/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext3/inode.c
@@ -795,10 +795,6 @@ static int ext3_splice_branch(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
}
/* We are done with atomic stuff, now do the rest of housekeeping */
-
- inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME_SEC;
- ext3_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
- /* ext3_mark_inode_dirty already updated i_sync_tid */
atomic_set(&ei->i_datasync_tid, handle->h_transaction->t_tid);
/* had we spliced it onto indirect block? */
@@ -819,9 +815,9 @@ static int ext3_splice_branch(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
} else {
/*
* OK, we spliced it into the inode itself on a direct block.
- * Inode was dirtied above.
*/
jbd_debug(5, "splicing direct\n");
+ ext3_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
}
return err;
--
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