On Thu 07-01-21 14:17:53, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 04-01-21 16:54:44, Eric Biggers wrote: > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > There is no need to call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates > > (i.e. for __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_TIME)), since by the definition of > > lazytime, filesystems must ignore these updates. Filesystems only need > > to care about the updated timestamps when they expire. > > > > Therefore, only call ->dirty_inode when I_DIRTY_INODE is set. > > > > Based on a patch from Christoph Hellwig: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325122825.1086872-4-hch@xxxxxx > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > ... > > > diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c > > index 081e335cdee47..e3347fd6eb13a 100644 > > --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c > > +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c > > @@ -2264,16 +2264,16 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags) > > * Don't do this for I_DIRTY_PAGES - that doesn't actually > > * dirty the inode itself > > */ > > - if (flags & (I_DIRTY_INODE | I_DIRTY_TIME)) { > > + if (flags & I_DIRTY_INODE) { > > trace_writeback_dirty_inode_start(inode, flags); > > > > if (sb->s_op->dirty_inode) > > sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, flags); > > OK, but shouldn't we pass just (flags & I_DIRTY_INODE) to ->dirty_inode(). > Just to make it clear what the filesystem is supposed to consume in > 'flags'... Aha, you just did that in the following patch ;) So taking back my comment. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
