Re: [PATCH 1/5][TAKE3] fallocate() implementation on i86, x86_64and powerpc

[Dave Kleikamp]

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 09:40 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:21:16AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:16 +1000, David Chinner wrote:

> > > Please don't make this always happen. c/mtime updates should be dependent
> > > on the mode being used and whether there is visible change to the file. If no
> > > userspace visible changes to the file occurred, then timestamps should not
> > > be changed.
> > 
> > i_blocks will be updated, so it seems reasonable to update ctime.  mtime
> > shouldn't be changed, though, since the contents of the file will be
> > unchanged.
> 
> That's assuming blocks were actually allocated - if the prealloc range already
> has underlying blocks there is no change and so we should not be changing
> mtime either. Only the filesystem will know if it has changed the file, so I
> think that timestamp updates need to be driven down to that level, not done
> blindy at the highest layer....

Yes, I agree.

Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/