[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1402180911110.2216@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:13:17 +0100 (CET)
From: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ext4: Update inode i_size after the preallocation
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:21:00 -0500
> From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
> Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
> Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
> linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ext4: Update inode i_size after the preallocation
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:12:14PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >
> > I don't necessarily agree about this. Calling fallocate() will not
> > change the user-visible data at all, so there is no reason to e.g.
> > do a new backup of the file or reprocess the contents, or any other
> > reason that an application cares about a changed mtime.
>
> Well, if i_size has changed, then the visible results of reading from
> the file will change, so in that case I'd argue m_time should change.
> If the results of reading file doesn't change then we can keep m_time
> unchanged --- but since the inode is changing, c_time *should* always
> change any time we've made any changes to the extent tree.
>
> - Ted
So I guess the consensus is to update m_time only when the inode size
changes in fallocate case. I'll change that in the code.
Thanks!
-Lukas
--
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