[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210108091436.GC2587@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:14:36 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] fs: add a lazytime_expired method
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 02:05:57PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> The XFS developers might have a different opinion though, as they were the ones
> who requested it originally:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312143445.GA19160@infradead.org
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325092057.GA25483@infradead.org
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325154759.GY29339@magnolia
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312223913.GL10776@dread.disaster.area
>
> Any thoughts from anyone about whether we should still introduce a separate
> notification for lazytime expiration, vs. just using ->dirty_inode(I_DIRTY_SYNC)
> with I_DIRTY_TIME in i_state?
I still find the way ->dirty_inode is used very confusing, but with this
series and Jan's first patch I think we have a good enough state for now
and don't need to add a method just for XFS. I still think it might make
sense to eventually revisit how file systems are notified about dirtying.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists