[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141124163830.GA26471@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:38:30 +0100
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and
write_time()
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:42:45PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why does btrfs_update_time() need to call
> btrfs_root_readonly()? Why can't it just depend on the
> __mnt_want_write() call in touch_atime()?
mnt_want_write looks only at the mountpoint flags, the readonly
subvolume status is external to that.
> Surely if there are times when it's not OK to write into a btrfs file
> system and mnt_is_readonly() returns false, the VFS is going to get
> very confused abyway.
>
> If the btrfs_update_time() is not necessary, then we could drop
> btrfs_update_time() and update_time() from the inode operations
> entirely, and depend on the VFS-level code in update_time().
It is necessary and the whole .update_time callback was added
intentionally, see commits
c3b2da314834499f34cba94f7053e55f6d6f92d8
fs: introduce inode operation ->update_time
e41f941a23115e84a8550b3d901a13a14b2edc2f
Btrfs: move over to use ->update_time
2bc5565286121d2a77ccd728eb3484dff2035b58
Btrfs: don't update atime on RO subvolumes
--
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