Re: [PATCH v2 39/92] erofs: convert to ctime accessor functions

[Gao Xiang]

Hi Jan,

On 2023/7/6 19:00, 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 <xi...@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlay...@kernel.org>

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);

I'm fine with this.  I think we could use this (although I'm not sure
if checkpatch will complain but personally I'm fine.)

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

?

                                                                Honza