Re: [PATCH 7/9] gfs2: update ctime when quota is updated

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:36 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 18:44 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > Jeff,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:50 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/gfs2/quota.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/quota.c b/fs/gfs2/quota.c
> > > index 1ed17226d9ed..6d283e071b90 100644
> > > --- a/fs/gfs2/quota.c
> > > +++ b/fs/gfs2/quota.c
> > > @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ static int gfs2_adjust_quota(struct gfs2_inode *ip, loff_t loc,
> > >                 size = loc + sizeof(struct gfs2_quota);
> > >                 if (size > inode->i_size)
> > >                         i_size_write(inode, size);
> > > -               inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = current_time(inode);
> > > +               inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = inode->i_ctime = current_time(inode);
> >
> > I don't think we need to worry about the ctime of the quota inode as
> > that inode is internal to the filesystem only.
> >
>
> Thanks Andreas.  I'll plan to drop this patch from the series for now.
>
> Does updating the mtime and atime here serve any purpose, or should
> those also be removed? If you plan to keep the a/mtime updates then I'd
> still suggest updating the ctime for consistency's sake. It shouldn't
> cost anything extra to do so since you're dirtying the inode below
> anyway.

Yes, good point actually, we should keep things consistent for simplicity.

Would you add this back in if you do another posting?

Thanks,
Andreas

> Thanks!
>
> > >                 mark_inode_dirty(inode);
> > >                 set_bit(QDF_REFRESH, &qd->qd_flags);
> > >         }
> > > --
> > > 2.40.1
> > >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andreas
> >
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
>