On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:02:02PM -0800, David Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:27 PM Gao Xiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, I agree I should think more when I planned to store `ctime' at the > > first time [my original thought was to keep metadata time (including > > uid, gid, etc..), so I selected `ctime' instead of `mtime']. > > > > Should we change what's described in 'Documentation/filesystems/erofs.rst' > > and even rename i_ctime to i_mtime? > > That's a good idea, I'll repost with a patch to rename to mtime. > Initially I figured it was ok, but the "ctime" name would cause > problems if EROFS ever stores both timestamps.
Yeah, I recommend that we could use mtime from now on, but in case that users are confused, we may need add a compatible feature to indicate that. > > > Also should we introduce a new compat feature to indicate that new mkfs > > records mtime instead? > > Will do. Is there anything in the kernel that would need to care about > the new flag? (It looks like no but asking just in case.) No I think, old kernels are still compatible with a new compatible feature. It's just for marking. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > Best, > > -David
