Re: [PATCH 15/79] bfs: switch to new ctime accessors

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 21-06-23 10:45:28, Jeff Layton wrote:
> In later patches, we're going to change how the ctime.tv_nsec field is
> utilized. Switch to using accessor functions instead of raw accesses of
> inode->i_ctime.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>

...

> diff --git a/fs/bfs/inode.c b/fs/bfs/inode.c
> index 1926bec2c850..c964316be32b 100644
> --- a/fs/bfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/bfs/inode.c
> @@ -82,10 +82,10 @@ struct inode *bfs_iget(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long ino)
>  	inode->i_blocks = BFS_FILEBLOCKS(di);
>  	inode->i_atime.tv_sec =  le32_to_cpu(di->i_atime);
>  	inode->i_mtime.tv_sec =  le32_to_cpu(di->i_mtime);
> -	inode->i_ctime.tv_sec =  le32_to_cpu(di->i_ctime);
> +	inode_ctime_set_sec(inode, le32_to_cpu(di->i_ctime));
>  	inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = 0;
>  	inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = 0;
> -	inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec = 0;
> +	inode_ctime_set_nsec(inode, 0);

So I'm somewhat wondering here - in other filesystem you construct
timespec64 and then use inode_ctime_set(). Here you use
inode_ctime_set_sec() + inode_ctime_set_nsec(). What's the benefit? It
seems these two functions are not used that much some maybe we could just
live with just inode_ctime_set() and constructing timespec64 when needed?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR