From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time() Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:34:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20141127123429.GD30152@quack.suse.cz> References: <1416997437-26092-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1416997437-26092-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20141126192328.GA20436@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Linux Filesystem Development List , Ext4 Developers List , Linux btrfs Developers List , XFS Developers To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141126192328.GA20436@infradead.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed 26-11-14 11:23:28, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > As mentioned last round please move the addition of the is_readonly > operation to the first thing in the series, so that the ordering makes > more sense. > > Second I think this patch is incorrect for XFS - XFS uses ->update_time > to set the time stampst in the dinode. These two need to be coherent > as we can write out a dirty inode any time, so it needs to have the > timestamp uptodate. But Ted changed XFS to copy timestamps to on-disk structure from the in-memory inode fields after VFS updated the timestamps. So the stamps should be coherent AFAICT, shouldn't they? > Third update_time now calls mark_inode_dirty unconditionally, while > previously it wasn't called when ->update_time was set. At least > for XFS that's a major change in behavior as XFS never used VFS dirty > tracking for metadata updates. We don't call mark_inode_dirty() when ->write_time is set (note the return, I missed it on the first reading) which looks sensible to me. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR