From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEABF7F72 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:57:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE80130407E for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id RIgJqOXitk3qG0oD (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:57:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:56:58 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time() Message-ID: <20141124155658.GA31339@thunk.org> References: <1416599964-21892-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1416599964-21892-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20141124152101.GA12575@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141124152101.GA12575@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ext4 Developers List , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 07:21:01AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:59:21PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > We needed to preserve update_time() because btrfs wants to have a > > special btrfs_root_readonly() check; otherwise we could drop the > > update_time() inode operation entirely. > > Can't btrfs just set the immutable flag on every inode that is read > when the root has the BTRFS_ROOT_SUBVOL_RDONLY flag? That would > cut down the places that need this check to the ioctl path so that > we prevent users from clearling the immutable flag. Sounds like a good plan to me, although I'm not sure I understand how BTRFS_ROOT_SUBVOL_RDONLY flag works, since I would have thought there are all sorts of places in the VFS layer where it is currently checking MS_RDONLY and MNT_READONLY and _not_ checking BTRFS_ROOT_SUBVOL_RDONLY isn't causing other problems. But unless there's something more subtle going on, it would seem to me that setting the immutable flag on each inode would be a better way to go in any case. - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs