From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from csamuel.org ([74.50.50.137]:51975 "EHLO csamuel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751824AbbAFLqz (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 06:46:55 -0500 From: Chris Samuel To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: Lennart Poettering Subject: Re: btrfs_inode_item's otime? Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 22:47 +1100 Message-ID: <1891475.iuyauiTsCQ@quad> In-Reply-To: <20150105172152.GB19126@gardel-login> References: <20150105172152.GB19126@gardel-login> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 06:21:52 PM Lennart Poettering wrote: > Is this on purpose, or simply an oversight? The only hint I can see that it's deliberate is the comment in fs/btrfs/send.c that says: /* TODO Add otime support when the otime patches get into upstream */ However... > It should be easy to initialize it to the mtime when the inode is > first created... This I agree with, well worth doing anyway. I'll see if I can knock up a patch. All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC