On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 02:05:57PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > The XFS developers might have a different opinion though, as they were the ones > who requested it originally: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312143445.GA19160@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325092057.GA25483@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325154759.GY29339@magnolia > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312223913.GL10776@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Any thoughts from anyone about whether we should still introduce a separate > notification for lazytime expiration, vs. just using ->dirty_inode(I_DIRTY_SYNC) > with I_DIRTY_TIME in i_state? I still find the way ->dirty_inode is used very confusing, but with this series and Jan's first patch I think we have a good enough state for now and don't need to add a method just for XFS. I still think it might make sense to eventually revisit how file systems are notified about dirtying.
