2008/1/17, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 4. Recording the time was the file data changed > > > > > > Finally, I noticed yet another issue with the previous version of my > > > patch. > > > Specifically, the time stamps were set to the current time of the moment > > > when syncing but not the write reference was being done. This led to the > > > following adverse effect on my development system: > > > > > > 1) a text file A was updated by process B; > > > 2) process B exits without calling any of the *sync() functions; > > > 3) vi editor opens the file A; > > > 4) file data synced, file times updated; > > > 5) vi is confused by "thinking" that the file was changed after 3). > > Updating the time in remove_vma() would fix this, no?
We need to save modification time. Otherwise, updating time stamps will be confusing the vi editor. > > > > All these changes to inode.c are unnecessary, I think. > > > > The first part is necessary to account for "remembering" the modification > > time. > > > > The second part is for handling block device files. I cannot see any other > > sane way to update file times for them. > > Use file_update_time(), which will do the right thing. It will in > fact do the same thing as write(2) on the device, which is really what > we want. > > Block devices being mapped for write through different device > nodes..., well, I don't think we really need to handle such weird > corner cases 100% acurately. The file_update_time() cannot be used for implementing the "auto-update" feature, because the sync() system call doesn't "know" about the file which was memory-mapped. > > Miklos > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/