On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:04:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:28:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > The ->is_readonly method seems like a clear winner to me, I'm all for > > adding it, and thus suggested moving it first in the series. > > It's a real winner for me as well, but the reason why I dropped it is > because if btrfs() has to keep its ->update_time function, we wouldn't > actually have a user for is_readonly(). I suppose we could have > update_time() call ->is_readonly() and then ->update_time() if they > exist, but it only seemed to add an extra call and a bit of extra > overhead without really simplifying things for btrfs. We would use is_readonly in order to remove some extra checks from btrfs (setxattr, removexattr, possibly setsize). > If there were other users of ->is_readonly, then it would make sense, > but it seemed better to move into a separate code refactoring series. Yeah it would be better addressed separately as it's not the point of lazytime patchset and only turned out to be a good idea during the iterations. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
