Re: [PATCH 7/9] gfs2: update ctime when quota is updated

Andreas Grünbacher
2023-07-05T23:20:35Z

Am Mi., 5. Juli 2023 um 23:51 Uhr schrieb Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>:
>
> On Wed, 2023-07-05 at 22:25 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:36 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 18:44 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > > Jeff,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:50 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/gfs2/quota.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/quota.c b/fs/gfs2/quota.c
> > > > > index 1ed17226d9ed..6d283e071b90 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/gfs2/quota.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/gfs2/quota.c
> > > > > @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ static int gfs2_adjust_quota(struct gfs2_inode *ip, loff_t loc,
> > > > > size = loc + sizeof(struct gfs2_quota);
> > > > > if (size > inode->i_size)
> > > > > i_size_write(inode, size);
> > > > > - inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = current_time(inode);
> > > > > + inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = inode->i_ctime = current_time(inode);
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we need to worry about the ctime of the quota inode as
> > > > that inode is internal to the filesystem only.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Andreas. I'll plan to drop this patch from the series for now.
> > >
> > > Does updating the mtime and atime here serve any purpose, or should
> > > those also be removed? If you plan to keep the a/mtime updates then I'd
> > > still suggest updating the ctime for consistency's sake. It shouldn't
> > > cost anything extra to do so since you're dirtying the inode below
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Yes, good point actually, we should keep things consistent for simplicity.
> >
> > Would you add this back in if you do another posting?
> >
>
> I just re-posted the other patches in this as part of the ctime accessor
> conversion. If I post again though, I can resurrect the gfs2 patch. If
> not, we can do a follow-on fix later.

Sure, not a big deal.

> Since we're discussing it, it may be more correct to remove the atime
> update there. gfs2_adjust_quota sounds like a "modify" operation, not a
> "read", so I don't see a reason to update the atime.
>
> In general, the only time you only want to set the atime, ctime and
> mtime in lockstep is when the inode is brand new.

Yes, that makes sense, too.

Thanks,
Andreas