[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zxcwflyr4gjglqmpjnr6vgcb6iv3zu5iub4yf35i2kdhn37ox5@rudbrvydeev5>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 18:36:31 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Mike Marshall <hubcap@...ibond.com>, Martin Brandenburg <martin@...ibond.com>,
Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>, Stefan Roesch <shr@...com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ts.orangefs.org, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] fs: factor out a sync_lazytime helper
On Mon 24-11-25 15:09:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 02:31:02PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > + if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL ||
> > > + time_after(jiffies, inode->dirtied_time_when +
> > > + dirtytime_expire_interval * HZ))
> > > + sync_lazytime(inode);
> >
> > The checking of inode->dirtied_time_when for inode potentially without
> > I_DIRTY_TIME set (and thus with unclear value of dirtied_time_when) is kind
> > of odd. It is harmless but IMO still not a good practice. Can't we keep
> > this condition as is and just call sync_lazytime()?
>
> As in keeping the I_DIRTY_TIME in the caller? Sure, I could do that.
Yes, keeping I_DIRTY_TIME check at this call site.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists