| To: | Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time() |
| From: | David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:09:51 +0100 |
| Cc: | dsterba@xxxxxxx, Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20141124172216.GC31339@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | dsterba@xxxxxxx, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <1416599964-21892-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <1416599964-21892-2-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <1416600528.24312.10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141121214245.GG7112@xxxxxxxxx> <20141124163830.GA26471@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141124172216.GC31339@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | dsterba@xxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:16PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:38:30PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > > It is necessary and the whole .update_time callback was added > > intentionally, see commits > > > > c3b2da314834499f34cba94f7053e55f6d6f92d8 > > fs: introduce inode operation ->update_time > > > > e41f941a23115e84a8550b3d901a13a14b2edc2f > > Btrfs: move over to use ->update_time > > Being able to signal an error if the time update fails is still > possible even if we drop update_time(), because the new write_time() > function will return an error. Fine, means your change does not break the current status. I was providing the more complete list of related commits. > > 2bc5565286121d2a77ccd728eb3484dff2035b58 > > Btrfs: don't update atime on RO subvolumes > > Yes, but this doesn't answer my question about other places where the > VFS is only checking MS_RDONLY and MNT_READONLY besides just > update_atime(). Maybe we should be exposing an "is_readonly(inode)" > inode operations function to address this? Yes, if this is a lightweight check then it'd would allow to remove the filesystem-specific checks. |
| Previous by Date: | Реальная возможность заработать $1235 за день, Макс Хиггер |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfs: overflow in xfs_iomap_eof_align_last_fsb, Peter Watkins |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time(), Theodore Ts'o |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time(), Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |