[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4df4ef0c0801170516k3f82dc69ieee836b5633378a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:16:47 +0300
From: "Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@...il.com>
To: "Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, jakob@...hought.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, valdis.kletnieks@...edu,
riel@...hat.com, ksm@...dk, staubach@...hat.com,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
protasnb@...il.com, r.e.wolff@...wizard.nl,
hidave.darkstar@...il.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 2/2] Updating ctime and mtime at syncing
2008/1/17, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>:
> > > 4. Recording the time was the file data changed
> > >
> > > Finally, I noticed yet another issue with the previous version of my patch.
> > > Specifically, the time stamps were set to the current time of the moment
> > > when syncing but not the write reference was being done. This led to the
> > > following adverse effect on my development system:
> > >
> > > 1) a text file A was updated by process B;
> > > 2) process B exits without calling any of the *sync() functions;
> > > 3) vi editor opens the file A;
> > > 4) file data synced, file times updated;
> > > 5) vi is confused by "thinking" that the file was changed after 3).
>
> Updating the time in remove_vma() would fix this, no?
We need to save modification time. Otherwise, updating time stamps
will be confusing the vi editor.
>
> > > All these changes to inode.c are unnecessary, I think.
> >
> > The first part is necessary to account for "remembering" the modification time.
> >
> > The second part is for handling block device files. I cannot see any other
> > sane way to update file times for them.
>
> Use file_update_time(), which will do the right thing. It will in
> fact do the same thing as write(2) on the device, which is really what
> we want.
>
> Block devices being mapped for write through different device
> nodes..., well, I don't think we really need to handle such weird
> corner cases 100% acurately.
The file_update_time() cannot be used for implementing
the "auto-update" feature, because the sync() system call
doesn't "know" about the file which was memory-mapped.
>
> Miklos
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists