Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has I_DIRTY_INODE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 02:23:06PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > 
> > Also what is the precise meaning of the flags argument to ->dirty_inode now?
> > 
> > 	sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode,
> > 			flags & (I_DIRTY_INODE | I_DIRTY_TIME));
> > 
> > Note that dirty_inode is documented in Documentation/filesystems/vfs.rst.
> 
> Don't know. It alredy don't mention I_DIRTY_SYNC that can be there as
> well.

Well, it didn't really need to because there were only two possibilities:
datasync and not datasync.  This patch changes that.

> Additionaly it can have I_DIRTY_TIME to inform the fs we have a
> dirty timestamp as well (in case of lazytime).

This is introduced by this patch.

- Eric



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux