xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time()
From: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:18:54 +0100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Filesystem Development List <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux btrfs Developers List <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Developers <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20141201150450.GA3337@xxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: dsterba@xxxxxxx, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Filesystem Development List <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux btrfs Developers List <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Developers <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1416997437-26092-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <1416997437-26092-2-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <20141126192328.GA20436@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141127144116.GA14091@xxxxxxxxx> <20141127153315.GC14091@xxxxxxxxx> <20141127164952.GA1622@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141127202731.GG14091@xxxxxxxxx> <20141201092810.GA5538@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141201150450.GA3337@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: dsterba@xxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
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.

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