From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38439 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbbFYSMZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:12:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:12:23 -0700 From: Mark Fasheh To: dsterba@suse.cz, Zygo Blaxell , Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: add no_mtime flag to btrfs-extent-same Message-ID: <20150625181223.GA10324@wotan.suse.de> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh References: <1435013262-23252-1-git-send-email-mfasheh@suse.de> <1435013262-23252-6-git-send-email-mfasheh@suse.de> <20150623151156.GI6761@twin.jikos.cz> <20150624201732.GA14931@hungrycats.org> <20150625125250.GF726@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150625125250.GF726@twin.jikos.cz> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 02:52:50PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 04:17:32PM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > Is there any sane use case where we would _want_ EXTENT_SAME to change > > the mtime? We do a lot of work to make sure that none of the files > > involved have any sort of content change. Why do we need the flag at all? > > Good point, I don't see the usecase for updating MTIME. Yeah there isn't one and I doubt anyone will be upset if we just always ignore the mtime update. I'll send some new patches shortly. Thanks for the suggestion Zygo. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh