xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/6] ext4: Update inode i_size after the preallocation

To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ext4: Update inode i_size after the preallocation
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:21:00 -0500
Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=thunk.org; s=mail; t=1392679260; bh=baRDPzSTdcxRKD+px1I8zF03v4+4QVHUhN5r0UJarB8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CU28YKIaL9vFlIkfHKEfNsjILWq0UF8cGqmVprFaXl1lV6Oe2kr5nGdWlHnRkr+lR ln87xBP24t/vLtbx/ELfIM/393xlnrC6RLOZ4X973ChKe5XlFTxIUYQ3d+ca6jp29Q oOfurZkekiiW5UXqUH2aVm997ApP8Sxwqf/KrDvs=
In-reply-to: <9288BED9-A44E-4ACC-9A3D-BC086AB4E121@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <1392649703-10772-1-git-send-email-lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> <1392649703-10772-2-git-send-email-lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> <9288BED9-A44E-4ACC-9A3D-BC086AB4E121@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:12:14PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
> I don't necessarily agree about this.  Calling fallocate() will not
> change the user-visible data at all, so there is no reason to e.g.
> do a new backup of the file or reprocess the contents, or any other
> reason that an application cares about a changed mtime.

Well, if i_size has changed, then the visible results of reading from
the file will change, so in that case I'd argue m_time should change.
If the results of reading file doesn't change then we can keep m_time
unchanged --- but since the inode is changing, c_time *should* always
change any time we've made any changes to the extent tree.

                                     - Ted

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>