On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 08:58:08PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:43:20AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 9:22:22 am Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:13:05PM +0100, Michael Landin Hostbaek wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I do not like it. As I said in the previous response to Andrey, > > > > > I think that moving the vnode_pager_setsize() after the unlock is > > > > > better, since it reduces races with other thread seeing half-done > > > > > attribute update or making attribute change simultaneously. > > > > > > > > OK - so should I wait for another patch - or? > > > > > > I think the following is what I mean. As an additional note, why nfs > > > client does not trim the buffers when server reported node size change ? > > > > Will changing the size always result in an mtime change forcing the client > > to > > throw away the data on the next read or fault anyway (or does it only affect > > ctime)? > > UFS only modifies ctime on truncation, it seems.
No, I was wrong. ffs_truncate() indeed only sets both IN_CHANGE | IN_UPDATE flags for the inode, and IN_UPDATE causes mtime update in ufs_itimes(), called from UFS_UPDATE().
pgp1vaxm89T7D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
