Hi Jan,
On 2023/7/6 19:00, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 05-07-23 15:01:04, Jeff Layton wrote:
In later patches, we're going to change how the inode's ctime field is
used. Switch to using accessor functions instead of raw accesses of
inode->i_ctime.
Acked-by: Gao Xiang <xiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Just one nit below:
@@ -176,10 +175,10 @@ static void *erofs_read_inode(struct erofs_buf *buf,
vi->chunkbits = sb->s_blocksize_bits +
(vi->chunkformat & EROFS_CHUNK_FORMAT_BLKBITS_MASK);
}
- inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = inode->i_ctime.tv_sec;
- inode->i_atime.tv_sec = inode->i_ctime.tv_sec;
- inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec;
- inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec;
+ inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_sec;
+ inode->i_atime.tv_sec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_sec;
+ inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_nsec;
+ inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_nsec;
Isn't this just longer way to write:
inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode_get_ctime(inode);
I'm fine with this. I think we could use this (although I'm not sure
if checkpatch will complain but personally I'm fine.)
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
?
Honza
