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 B4E2C7F4E for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 06:34:39 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866F0304039 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 04:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 89sh1jz1gkRT3n02 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 04:34:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:34:29 +0100 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time() 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141126192328.GA20436@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 Filesystem Development List , Ext4 Developers List , Theodore Ts'o , Linux btrfs Developers List , XFS Developers 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs