On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:04:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
- convert ext3/4 to use -update_time instead of the -dirty_time
callout so it gets and exact notifications (preferably the few
remaining filesystems as well, although that shouldn't really be a
blocker)
We could do
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 01:20:33AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Why do you need the additional I_DIRTY flag? A lesser
__mark_inode_dirty should never override a stronger one.
Agreed, will fix.
Otherwise this looks fine to me, except that I would split the default
implementation into a
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:27:31PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I can do that, but part of the reason why we were doing this rather
involved set of changes was to allow other file systems to be able to
take advantage of lazytime. I suppose there is value in allowing
other file systems, such as
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
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
On Wed 26-11-14 11:23:28, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
As mentioned last round please move the addition of the is_readonly
operation to the first thing in the series, so that the ordering makes
more sense.
Second I think this patch is incorrect for XFS - XFS uses -update_time
to set the time
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:23:28AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
As mentioned last round please move the addition of the is_readonly
operation to the first thing in the series, so that the ordering makes
more sense.
OK, will fix.
Second I think this patch is incorrect for XFS - XFS uses
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:34:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
But Ted changed XFS to copy timestamps to on-disk structure from the
in-memory inode fields after VFS updated the timestamps. So the stamps
should be coherent AFAICT, shouldn't they?
Not coherent enough. We need the XFS ilock to
FYI, I suspect for now the best might be to let filesystems that define
-update_times work as-is and not tie them into the infrastructure. At
least for XFS I suspect the lazy updates might better be handled
internally, although I'm not entirely sure yet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Christoph, can you take a quick look at this? I'm not sure I got the
xfs inode transaction logging correct.
Thanks!!
- Ted
commit cd58addfa340c9cf88b1f9b2d31a42e2e65c7252
Author: Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu
Date: Thu Nov 27 10:14:27 2014 -0500
I don't think this scheme works well. As mentioned earlier XFS doesn't
even use vfs dirty tracking at the moment, so introducing this in a
hidden way sounds like a bad idea. Probably the same for btrfs.
I'd rather keep update_time as-is for now, don't add -write_time and
let btrfs and XFS
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:49:52AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think this scheme works well. As mentioned earlier XFS doesn't
even use vfs dirty tracking at the moment, so introducing this in a
hidden way sounds like a bad idea. Probably the same for btrfs.
I'd rather keep
In preparation for adding support for the lazytime mount option, we
need to be able to separate out the update_time() and write_time()
inode operations. Currently, only btrfs and xfs uses update_time().
We needed to preserve update_time() because btrfs wants to have a
special
As mentioned last round please move the addition of the is_readonly
operation to the first thing in the series, so that the ordering makes
more sense.
Second I think this patch is incorrect for XFS - XFS uses -update_time
to set the time stampst in the dinode. These two need to be coherent
as we
14 matches
Mail list logo
