Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time()

David Sterba
2014-12-01T17:19:08Z

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:04:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:28:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > The ->is_readonly method seems like a clear winner to me, I'm all for
> > adding it, and thus suggested moving it first in the series.
>
> It's a real winner for me as well, but the reason why I dropped it is
> because if btrfs() has to keep its ->update_time function, we wouldn't
> actually have a user for is_readonly(). I suppose we could have
> update_time() call ->is_readonly() and then ->update_time() if they
> exist, but it only seemed to add an extra call and a bit of extra
> overhead without really simplifying things for btrfs.

We would use is_readonly in order to remove some extra checks from btrfs
(setxattr, removexattr, possibly setsize).

> If there were other users of ->is_readonly, then it would make sense,
> but it seemed better to move into a separate code refactoring series.

Yeah it would be better addressed separately as it's not the point of
lazytime patchset and only turned out to be a good idea during the
iterations.