On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 02:20:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > > > > - if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME) > > - mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode); > > + /* This was a lazytime expiration; we need to tell the file system */ > > + if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED && inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode) > > + inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC); > > I think this needs a very clear comment explaining why we don't go > through __mark_inode_dirty.
I can take the explanation which is in the git commit description and move it into the comment. > But as said before I'd rather have a new lazytime_expired operation that > makes it very clear what is happening. We currenly have 4 file systems > (ext4, f2fs, ubifs and xfs) that support lazytime, so this won't really > be a major churn. Again, I believe patch #2 does what you want; if it doesn't can you explain why passing I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED to s_op->dirty_inode() isn't "a new lazytime expired operation that makes very clear what is happening"? I separated out patch #1 and patch #2 because patch #1 preserves current behavior, and patch #2 modifies XFS code, which I don't want to push Linus without an XFS reviewed-by. N.b. None of the other file systems required a change for patch #2, so if you want, we can have the XFS tree carry patch #2, and/or combine that with whatever other simplifying changes that you want. Or I can combine patch #1 and patch #2, with an XFS Reviewed-by, and send it through the ext4 tree. What's your pleasure? - Ted _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linuxemail@example.com https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel