From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] splice: update mtime and atime on files Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:50:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20090818085051.GM12579@kernel.dk> References: <20090815064241.GE12579@kernel.dk> <20090818050027.GE11624@1wt.eu> <20090818083547.GK12579@kernel.dk> <20090818084625.GF18709@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Miklos Szeredi , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:33028 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbZHRIuu (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:50:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090818084625.GF18709@1wt.eu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:35:48AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 08:42:41AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 14 2009, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > From: Miklos Szeredi > > > > > > > > > > Splice should update the modification and access times on regular > > > > > files just like read and write. Not updating mtime will confuse > > > > > backup tools, etc... > > > > > > > > > > This patch only adds the time updates for regular files. For pipes > > > > > and other special files that splice touches the need for updating the > > > > > times is less clear. Let's discuss and fix that separately. > > > > > > > > Thanks Miklos, I've queued this one up. > > > > > > wouldn't it make sense to send that to stable too ? The patch is not > > > intrusive and looks like a fix to me. > > > > It doesn't really meet the stable criteria, as it's not a security issue > > nor does it crash the kernel. > > Oh there are many other things which go to stable, especially bug I'm aware of that, doesn't mean it's what the rules describe or that it's necessarily a good idea :-) > fixes and minor improvements. We *could* classify this in the bug > fixes as, I Miklos suggested it, this could have an impact on > modified files which would currently not be backed up for instance. I've never heard anyone complain about this, and I suspect that Miklos found it from code inspection rather than experiencing an issue with it. So while it can indeed be classified as a bug (and it is), the impact is not huge. That said, I don't have a huge issue with shoving this in -stable. I just don't think it's a big deal. -- Jens Axboe