On Mon 02-05-11 16:27:39, Surbhi Palande wrote: > On 05/02/2011 04:24 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 04:22:45PM +0300, Surbhi Palande wrote: > >>This has another advantage, that it rightfully does not let you > >>update the access time when the F.S is frozen (touch_atime called > >>from a read path when the F.S is frozen) Otherwise we also need to > >>fix this path. > >In most filesystens atime updates aren't transactional. They just > >get written into inode->i_atime, and at some later point when the > >VFS tries to clean the inode it gets writtent back, either through > >a transaction or not. > > > Yes, agreed. But then when a F.S is frozen the inode should not be > dirtied? Right? So this has to be fixed? > Also, in ext4, I think that updating atime starts a transaction. Yes, it does. Any mark_inode_dirty() call causes a transaction update. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
