On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:36 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 18:44 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > Jeff, > > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:50 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/gfs2/quota.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/quota.c b/fs/gfs2/quota.c > > > index 1ed17226d9ed..6d283e071b90 100644 > > > --- a/fs/gfs2/quota.c > > > +++ b/fs/gfs2/quota.c > > > @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ static int gfs2_adjust_quota(struct gfs2_inode *ip, loff_t loc, > > > size = loc + sizeof(struct gfs2_quota); > > > if (size > inode->i_size) > > > i_size_write(inode, size); > > > - inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = current_time(inode); > > > + inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = inode->i_ctime = current_time(inode); > > > > I don't think we need to worry about the ctime of the quota inode as > > that inode is internal to the filesystem only. > > > > Thanks Andreas. I'll plan to drop this patch from the series for now. > > Does updating the mtime and atime here serve any purpose, or should > those also be removed? If you plan to keep the a/mtime updates then I'd > still suggest updating the ctime for consistency's sake. It shouldn't > cost anything extra to do so since you're dirtying the inode below > anyway. Yes, good point actually, we should keep things consistent for simplicity. Would you add this back in if you do another posting? Thanks, Andreas > Thanks! > > > > mark_inode_dirty(inode); > > > set_bit(QDF_REFRESH, &qd->qd_flags); > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.40.1 > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Andreas > > > > -- > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> >
