Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce inode operation ->update_time

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:10:30AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Btrfs has to make sure we have space to allocate new blocks in order to modify
> the inode, so updating time can fail.  We've gotten around this by having our
> own file_update_time but this is kind of a pain, and Christoph has indicated he
> would like to make xfs do something different with atime updates.  So introduce
> ->update_time, where we will deal with i_version an a/m/c time updates and
> indicate which changes need to be made.  The normal version just does what it
> has always done, updates the time and marks the inode dirty, and then
> filesystems can choose to do something different.
> 
> I've gone through all of the users of file_update_time and made them check for
> errors with the exception of the fault code since it's complicated and I wasn't
> quite sure what to do there, also Jan is going to be pushing the file time
> updates into page_mkwrite for those who have it so that should satisfy btrfs and
> make it not a big deal to check the file_update_time() return code in the
> generic fault path. Thanks,

Any reason that atime updates ignore the return value?

Otherwise looks fine,

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html