[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c7fc812e444fee2fa7243044da5a48d1ad5b63ab.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:10:25 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Sage Weil <sweil@...hat.com>
Cc: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zyan@...hat.com>, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ceph: initialize superblock s_time_gran to 1
On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 15:44 +0000, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 14:51 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> > > Having granularity set to 1us results in having inode timestamps with a
> > > accurancy different from the fuse client (i.e. atime, ctime and mtime will
> > > always end with '000'). This patch normalizes this behaviour and sets the
> > > granularity to 1.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/ceph/super.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > As far as I could see there are no other side-effects of changing
> > > s_time_gran but I'm really not sure why it was initially set to 1000 in
> > > the first place so I may be missing something.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
> > > index d57fa60dcd43..35dd75bc9cd0 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
> > > @@ -980,7 +980,7 @@ static int ceph_set_super(struct super_block *s, void *data)
> > > s->s_d_op = &ceph_dentry_ops;
> > > s->s_export_op = &ceph_export_ops;
> > >
> > > - s->s_time_gran = 1000; /* 1000 ns == 1 us */
> > > + s->s_time_gran = 1;
> > >
> > > ret = set_anon_super(s, NULL); /* what is that second arg for? */
> > > if (ret != 0)
> >
> >
> > Looks like it was set that way since the client code was originally
> > merged. Was this an earlier limitation of ceph that is no longer
> > applicable?
> >
> > In any case, I see no need at all to keep this at 1000, so:
>
> As long as the encoded on-write time value is at ns resolution, I
> agree! No recollection of why I did this :(
>
> Reviewed-by: Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>
Good enough for me. I went ahead and merged this into the testing
branch. Assuming nothing breaks, this should make v5.3.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists