[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141127164952.GA1622@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 08:49:52 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux Filesystem Development List
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux btrfs Developers List <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and
write_time()
I don't think this scheme works well. As mentioned earlier XFS doesn't
even use vfs dirty tracking at the moment, so introducing this in a
hidden way sounds like a bad idea. Probably the same for btrfs.
I'd rather keep update_time as-is for now, don't add ->write_time and
let btrfs and XFS figure out how to implement the semantics on their
own.
--
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