On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 13:00 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 05-07-23 15:01:04, Jeff Layton wrote: > > In later patches, we're going to change how the inode's ctime field is > > used. Switch to using accessor functions instead of raw accesses of > > inode->i_ctime. > > > > Acked-by: Gao Xiang <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > > Just one nit below: > > > @@ -176,10 +175,10 @@ static void *erofs_read_inode(struct erofs_buf *buf, > > vi->chunkbits = sb->s_blocksize_bits + > > (vi->chunkformat & EROFS_CHUNK_FORMAT_BLKBITS_MASK); > > } > > - inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = inode->i_ctime.tv_sec; > > - inode->i_atime.tv_sec = inode->i_ctime.tv_sec; > > - inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec; > > - inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec; > > + inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_sec; > > + inode->i_atime.tv_sec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_sec; > > + inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_nsec; > > + inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_nsec; > > Isn't this just longer way to write: > > inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode_get_ctime(inode); > > ? > > Honza
Yes. Chalk that one up to coccinelle. Fixed in my tree. -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
