On 5/22/22 12:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:39AM -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote:
>> +static int file_needs_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct file *file,
>> + struct timespec64 *now)
>> {
>> int sync_it = 0;
>
> No need to pass both and inode and a file as the former can be trivially
> derived from the latter. But if I'm not misreading the patch, file is
> entirely unused here anyway, so can't we just drop it and rename the
> function to inode_needs_update_time?
>
I renamed the function to inode_needs_update_time and only pass the inode
pointer.
>> +static int __file_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct file *file,
>> + struct timespec64 *now, int sync_mode)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>>
>> + /* try to update time settings */
>> + if (!__mnt_want_write_file(file)) {
>> + ret = inode_update_time(inode, now, sync_mode);
>> + __mnt_drop_write_file(file);
>> + }
>
> I'd be tempted to just open code this in the two callers, but either
> way works for me. If we keep the function please don't pass the
> inode separately.
The inode is no longer passed in.
