[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141127123429.GD30152@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:34:29 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
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()
On Wed 26-11-14 11:23:28, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> As mentioned last round please move the addition of the is_readonly
> operation to the first thing in the series, so that the ordering makes
> more sense.
>
> Second I think this patch is incorrect for XFS - XFS uses ->update_time
> to set the time stampst in the dinode. These two need to be coherent
> as we can write out a dirty inode any time, so it needs to have the
> timestamp uptodate.
But Ted changed XFS to copy timestamps to on-disk structure from the
in-memory inode fields after VFS updated the timestamps. So the stamps
should be coherent AFAICT, shouldn't they?
> Third update_time now calls mark_inode_dirty unconditionally, while
> previously it wasn't called when ->update_time was set. At least
> for XFS that's a major change in behavior as XFS never used VFS dirty
> tracking for metadata updates.
We don't call mark_inode_dirty() when ->write_time is set (note the
return, I missed it on the first reading) which looks sensible to me.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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