On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:04:56AM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:59:08AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:14:00PM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 2007 17:37 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > > > > I think, modifying ctime/mtime should be dependent on the other flags. > > > > E.g., if we do not zero out data blocks on allocation/deallocation, > > > > update only ctime. Otherwise, update ctime and mtime both. > > > > > > I'm only being the advocate for requirements David Chinner has put > > > forward due to existing behaviour in XFS. This is one of the reasons > > > why I think the "flags" mechanism we now have - we can encode the > > > various different behaviours in any way we want and leave it to the > > > caller. > > > > I understand. May be we can confirm once more with David Chinner if this > > is really required. Will it really be a compatibility issue if new XFS > > preallocations (ie. via fallocate) update mtime/ctime? > > It should be left up to the filesystem to decide. Only the > filesystem knows whether something changed and the timestamp should > or should not be updated. Since Andreas had suggested FA_FL_NO_MTIME flag thinking it as a requirement from XFS (whereas XFS does not need this flag), I don't think we need to add this new flag. Please let know if someone still feels FA_FL_NO_MTIME flag can be useful. -- Regards, Amit Arora - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
