From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAC157F3F for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:42:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91778F8039 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:42:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id PORx0I7jW83ch1Ql (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:42:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:42:45 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time() Message-ID: <20141121214245.GG7112@thunk.org> References: <1416599964-21892-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1416599964-21892-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1416600528.24312.10@mail.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1416600528.24312.10@mail.thefacebook.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Chris Mason Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ext4 Developers List , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Out of curiosity, why does btrfs_update_time() need to call btrfs_root_readonly()? Why can't it just depend on the __mnt_want_write() call in touch_atime()? Surely if there are times when it's not OK to write into a btrfs file system and mnt_is_readonly() returns false, the VFS is going to get very confused abyway. If the btrfs_update_time() is not necessary, then we could drop btrfs_update_time() and update_time() from the inode operations entirely, and depend on the VFS-level code in update_time(). - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs