[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YuzPWfCuVNkmar2n@sol.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 01:05:45 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, jlayton@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has
I_DIRTY_INODE
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 12:53:39PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 9ad5e3520fae..2243797badf2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -2245,9 +2245,9 @@ static inline void kiocb_clone(struct kiocb *kiocb, struct kiocb *kiocb_src,
> * The inode itself only has dirty timestamps, and the
> * lazytime mount option is enabled. We keep track of this
> * separately from I_DIRTY_SYNC in order to implement
> * lazytime. This gets cleared if I_DIRTY_INODE
> - * (I_DIRTY_SYNC and/or I_DIRTY_DATASYNC) gets set. I.e.
> - * either I_DIRTY_TIME *or* I_DIRTY_INODE can be set in
> - * i_state, but not both. I_DIRTY_PAGES may still be set.
> + * (I_DIRTY_SYNC and/or I_DIRTY_DATASYNC) gets set. But
> + * I_DIRTY_TIME can still be set if I_DIRTY_SYNC is already
> + * in place.
I'm still having a hard time understanding the new semantics. The first
sentence above needs to be updated since I_DIRTY_TIME no longer means "the inode
itself only has dirty timestamps", right?
Also, have you checked all the places that I_DIRTY_TIME is used and verified
they do the right thing now? What about inode_is_dirtytime_only()?
Also what is the precise meaning of the flags argument to ->dirty_inode now?
sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode,
flags & (I_DIRTY_INODE | I_DIRTY_TIME));
Note that dirty_inode is documented in Documentation/filesystems/vfs.rst.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists