Re: [rfc][patch 3/4] fs: new truncate sequence

Nick Piggin
2009-07-07T15:48:25Z

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:58AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 05:02:57PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > That's kind of why I liked it in inode_setattr better.
> >
> > But if the filesystem defines its own ->setattr, then it could simply
> > not define a ->setsize and do the right thing in setattr. So this
> > calling convention seems not too bad.
>
> Or the filesystem could just call into it's own setattr method
> internally. For that we'd switch back to passing the iattr to
> ->setsize. For a filesystem that doesn't do anything special for
> ATTR_SIZE ->setsize could point to the same function as ->setattr.
>
> For filesystem where's it's really different they could be separate or
> share helpers.

OK, so what do you suggest? If the filesystem defines
->setsize then do not pass ATTR_SIZE changes into setattr?
But then do you also not pass in ATTR_TIME cchanges to setattr
iff they are together with ATTR_SIZE change? It sees also like
quite a difficult calling convention.