[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABeXuvor=fR1B12e_yzpZUriwChSfNw-A83mx9_E=GKaeyGZgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:01:22 -0800
From: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2b 3/5] fs: btrfs: Use vfs_time accessors
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Friday 12 February 2016 01:45:47 Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> + ts = vfs_time_to_timespec(inode->i_mtime);
>> + if (!timespec_equal(&ts, &now))
>> + inode->i_mtime = timespec_to_vfs_time(now);
>> +
>> + ts = vfs_time_to_timespec(inode->i_mtime);
>> + if (!timespec_equal(&ts, &now))
>> + inode->i_ctime = timespec_to_vfs_time(now);
>>
>
> The second one needs to be fs_time_to_timespec(inode->i_ctime), not i_mtime.
Yes, you are correct.
I will wait for some consensus on the proposal to figure out which
version to post again.
Thanks,
-Deepa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists