[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260107073552.GB17448@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 08:35:52 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...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 05/11] fs: refactor ->update_time handling
On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 12:48:47PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > +static int inode_update_cmtime(struct inode *inode)
> > +{
> > + struct timespec64 now = inode_set_ctime_current(inode);
>
> This needs to be below sampling of ctime. Otherwise inode dirtying will be
> broken...
Fixed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists