From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 3/4] fs: new truncate sequence Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:48:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20090707154809.GH2714@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090707144423.GC2714@wotan.suse.de> <20090707144823.GE2714@wotan.suse.de> <20090707145820.GA9976@infradead.org> <20090707150257.GG2714@wotan.suse.de> <20090707150758.GA18075@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090707150758.GA18075@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:58AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 05:02:57PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > That's kind of why I liked it in inode_setattr better. > > > > But if the filesystem defines its own ->setattr, then it could simply > > not define a ->setsize and do the right thing in setattr. So this > > calling convention seems not too bad. > > Or the filesystem could just call into it's own setattr method > internally. For that we'd switch back to passing the iattr to > ->setsize. For a filesystem that doesn't do anything special for > ATTR_SIZE ->setsize could point to the same function as ->setattr. > > For filesystem where's it's really different they could be separate or > share helpers. OK, so what do you suggest? If the filesystem defines ->setsize then do not pass ATTR_SIZE changes into setattr? But then do you also not pass in ATTR_TIME cchanges to setattr iff they are together with ATTR_SIZE change? It sees also like quite a difficult calling convention. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org