Re: [PATCH -v5 2/2] Updating ctime and mtime at syncing

[Anton Salikhmetov]

2008/1/17, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > 4. Recording the time was the file data changed
> > >
> > > Finally, I noticed yet another issue with the previous version of my patch.
> > > Specifically, the time stamps were set to the current time of the moment
> > > when syncing but not the write reference was being done. This led to the
> > > following adverse effect on my development system:
> > >
> > > 1) a text file A was updated by process B;
> > > 2) process B exits without calling any of the *sync() functions;
> > > 3) vi editor opens the file A;
> > > 4) file data synced, file times updated;
> > > 5) vi is confused by "thinking" that the file was changed after 3).
>
> Updating the time in remove_vma() would fix this, no?

We need to save modification time. Otherwise, updating time stamps
will be confusing the vi editor.

>
> > > All these changes to inode.c are unnecessary, I think.
> >
> > The first part is necessary to account for "remembering" the modification time.
> >
> > The second part is for handling block device files. I cannot see any other
> > sane way to update file times for them.
>
> Use file_update_time(), which will do the right thing.  It will in
> fact do the same thing as write(2) on the device, which is really what
> we want.
>
> Block devices being mapped for write through different device
> nodes..., well, I don't think we really need to handle such weird
> corner cases 100% acurately.

The file_update_time() cannot be used for implementing
the "auto-update" feature, because the sync() system call
doesn't "know" about the file which was memory-mapped.

>
> Miklos
>
--
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/