From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce inode operation ->update_time Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:21:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20120430152147.GA20554@infradead.org> References: <1332771031-3337-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org To: Josef Bacik Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1332771031-3337-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> List-ID: On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:10:30AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Btrfs has to make sure we have space to allocate new blocks in order to modify > the inode, so updating time can fail. We've gotten around this by having our > own file_update_time but this is kind of a pain, and Christoph has indicated he > would like to make xfs do something different with atime updates. So introduce > ->update_time, where we will deal with i_version an a/m/c time updates and > indicate which changes need to be made. The normal version just does what it > has always done, updates the time and marks the inode dirty, and then > filesystems can choose to do something different. > > I've gone through all of the users of file_update_time and made them check for > errors with the exception of the fault code since it's complicated and I wasn't > quite sure what to do there, also Jan is going to be pushing the file time > updates into page_mkwrite for those who have it so that should satisfy btrfs and > make it not a big deal to check the file_update_time() return code in the > generic fault path. Thanks, Any reason that atime updates ignore the return value? Otherwise looks fine, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig