On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:21:47AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:10:30AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Btrfs has to make sure we have space to allocate new blocks in order to modify > > the inode, so updating time can fail. We've gotten around this by having our > > own file_update_time but this is kind of a pain, and Christoph has indicated he > > would like to make xfs do something different with atime updates. So introduce > > ->update_time, where we will deal with i_version an a/m/c time updates and > > indicate which changes need to be made. The normal version just does what it > > has always done, updates the time and marks the inode dirty, and then > > filesystems can choose to do something different. > > > > I've gone through all of the users of file_update_time and made them check for > > errors with the exception of the fault code since it's complicated and I wasn't > > quite sure what to do there, also Jan is going to be pushing the file time > > updates into page_mkwrite for those who have it so that should satisfy btrfs and > > make it not a big deal to check the file_update_time() return code in the > > generic fault path. Thanks, > > Any reason that atime updates ignore the return value? > > Otherwise looks fine, > Yeah I figure it's not nice to return ENOSPC when somebody is doing a lookup, I'm open to other suggestions, but btrfs especially hits this with some of the ENOSPC xfstests and I think that could lead to unhappy users. Thanks, Josef -- 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
