From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
ceph-devel <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Delete timespec64_trunc()
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 03:04:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191208030407.GO4203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABeXuvrvATrw9QfVpi1s80Duen6jf5sw+pU91yN_0f3N1xWJQQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 06:04:38PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:02 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 06:43:26PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:20 PM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This series aims at deleting timespec64_trunc().
> > > > There is a new api: timestamp_truncate() that is the
> > > > replacement api. The api additionally does a limits
> > > > check on the filesystem timestamps.
> > >
> > > Al/Andrew, can one of you help merge these patches?
> >
> > Looks sane. Could you check if #misc.timestamp looks sane to you?
>
> Yes, that looks sane to me.
>
> > One thing that leaves me scratching head is kernfs - surely we
> > are _not_ limited by any external layouts there, so why do we
> > need to bother with truncation?
>
> I think I was more pedantic then, and was explicitly truncating times
> before assignment to inode timestamps. But, Arnd has since coached me
> that we should not introduce things to safe guard against all
> possibilities, but only what is needed currently. So this kernfs
> truncate is redundant, given the limits and the granularity match vfs
> timestamp representation limits.
OK... I've tossed a followup removing the truncation from kernfs;
the whole series looks reasonably safe, but I don't think it's urgent
enough to even try getting it merged before -rc1. So here's what
I'm going to do: immediately after -rc1 it gets renamed[*] to #imm.timestamp,
which will be in the never-modified mode, in #for-next from the very
begining and safe for other trees to pull. Current shortlog:
Al Viro (1):
kernfs: don't bother with timestamp truncation
Amir Goldstein (1):
utimes: Clamp the timestamps in notify_change()
Deepa Dinamani (6):
fs: fat: Eliminate timespec64_trunc() usage
fs: cifs: Delete usage of timespec64_trunc
fs: ceph: Delete timespec64_trunc() usage
fs: ubifs: Eliminate timespec64_trunc() usage
fs: Delete timespec64_trunc()
fs: Do not overload update_time
Diffstat:
fs/attr.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 4 +---
fs/cifs/inode.c | 13 +++++++------
fs/configfs/inode.c | 9 +++------
fs/f2fs/file.c | 18 ++++++------------
fs/fat/misc.c | 10 +++++++++-
fs/inode.c | 33 +++------------------------------
fs/kernfs/inode.c | 6 +++---
fs/ntfs/inode.c | 18 ++++++------------
fs/ubifs/file.c | 18 ++++++------------
fs/ubifs/sb.c | 11 ++++-------
fs/utimes.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/fs.h | 1 -
13 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-)
[*] right now it's based on v5.4; I don't see anything that would
warrant rebasing it to -rc1 at the moment, but if anything of that
sort shows up tomorrow, s/renamed/rebased to -rc1 and renamed/.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-08 3:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-03 5:19 [PATCH v2 0/6] Delete timespec64_trunc() Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-03 5:19 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] fs: fat: Eliminate timespec64_trunc() usage Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-03 5:19 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] fs: cifs: Delete usage of timespec64_trunc Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-03 5:19 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] fs: ceph: Delete timespec64_trunc() usage Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-03 18:55 ` Jeff Layton
2019-12-03 19:41 ` Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-03 19:49 ` Jeff Layton
2019-12-03 5:19 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] fs: ubifs: Eliminate " Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-03 5:19 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] fs: Delete timespec64_trunc() Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-03 5:19 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] fs: Do not overload update_time Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-06 2:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] Delete timespec64_trunc() Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-07 6:02 ` Al Viro
2019-12-08 2:04 ` Deepa Dinamani
2019-12-08 3:04 ` Al Viro [this message]
2019-12-09 0:48 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191208030407.GO4203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=stfrench@microsoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).