[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZEgUSw15g4Wbo91Z@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:56:27 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] fs: add infrastructure for multigrain inode
i_m/ctime
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 01:45:19PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Erm...it may be an unpopular opinion, but I find that more confusing
> than just ensuring that the s_time_gran > 1. I keep wondering if we
> might want to carve out other low-order bits too for some later purpose,
> at which point trying to check this using flags wouldn't work right. I
> think I might just stick with what I have here, at least for now.
But what if I set s_time_gran to 3 or 5? You'd really want a warning
about that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists