On 06/03/2010 11:18 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> Index: linux-2.6/fs/fuse/dir.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/fuse/dir.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/fs/fuse/dir.c
>> @@ -1161,20 +1161,6 @@ static int fuse_dir_fsync(struct file *f
>> return fuse_fsync_common(file, datasync, 1);
>> }
>>
>> -static bool update_mtime(unsigned ivalid)
>> -{
>> - /* Always update if mtime is explicitly set */
>> - if (ivalid & ATTR_MTIME_SET)
>> - return true;
>> -
>> - /* If it's an open(O_TRUNC) or an ftruncate(), don't update */
>> - if ((ivalid & ATTR_SIZE) && (ivalid & (ATTR_OPEN | ATTR_FILE)))
>> - return false;
>> -
>> - /* In all other cases update */
>> - return true;
>> -}
>> -
>
> Fuse philosophy is: each operation itself has to update times on files
> if necessary. So it basically moves the responsibility to update
> [amc]time from the VFS into the filesystem.
>
> This means the only place fuse is interested in ATTR_ATIME or
> ATTR_MTIME is for the utime* syscalls.
>
> It also means that fuse always ignores ATTR_CTIME which is never set
> explicitly.
>
> So I believe the current fuse code is correct.
>
It might be correct, but there were reports it has problems with NFS export.
Why let the filesystems be broken? Why not do the common stuff common? (In VFS)
Boaz
> Thanks,
> Miklos
> --
> 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
--
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
