On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:21:00 -0500 > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, > Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ext4: Update inode i_size after the preallocation > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:12:14PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > > I don't necessarily agree about this. Calling fallocate() will not > > change the user-visible data at all, so there is no reason to e.g. > > do a new backup of the file or reprocess the contents, or any other > > reason that an application cares about a changed mtime. > > Well, if i_size has changed, then the visible results of reading from > the file will change, so in that case I'd argue m_time should change. > If the results of reading file doesn't change then we can keep m_time > unchanged --- but since the inode is changing, c_time *should* always > change any time we've made any changes to the extent tree. > > - Ted So I guess the consensus is to update m_time only when the inode size changes in fallocate case. I'll change that in the code. Thanks! -Lukas _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
