On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:21:13AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 02:20:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > > > > > > - if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME) > > > - mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode); > > > + /* This was a lazytime expiration; we need to tell the file system */ > > > + if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED && inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode) > > > + inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC); > > > > I think this needs a very clear comment explaining why we don't go > > through __mark_inode_dirty. > > I can take the explanation which is in the git commit description and > move it into the comment. > > > But as said before I'd rather have a new lazytime_expired operation that > > makes it very clear what is happening. We currenly have 4 file systems > > (ext4, f2fs, ubifs and xfs) that support lazytime, so this won't really > > be a major churn. > > Again, I believe patch #2 does what you want; if it doesn't can you > explain why passing I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED to s_op->dirty_inode() isn't > "a new lazytime expired operation that makes very clear what is > happening"? > > I separated out patch #1 and patch #2 because patch #1 preserves > current behavior, and patch #2 modifies XFS code, which I don't want > to push Linus without an XFS reviewed-by. > > N.b. None of the other file systems required a change for patch #2, > so if you want, we can have the XFS tree carry patch #2, and/or > combine that with whatever other simplifying changes that you want. > Or I can combine patch #1 and patch #2, with an XFS Reviewed-by, and > send it through the ext4 tree. > > What's your pleasure? TBH while I'm pretty sure this does actually maintain more or less the same behavior on xfs, I prefer Christoph's explicit ->lazytime_expired approach[1] over squinting at bitflag manipulations. (It also took me a while to realize that this patch duo even existed, as it was kinda buried in its parent thread...) --D [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200325122825.1086872-1-hch@xxxxxx/T/#t > > - Ted >
