Searched hist:e2728c56 (Results 1 – 4 of 4) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/gfs2/ |
| H A D | super.c | e2728c56 Tue Jan 12 13:02:47 CST 2021 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> fs: don't call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
There is no need to call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
(i.e. for __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_TIME)), since by the definition of
lazytime, filesystems must ignore these updates. Filesystems only need
to care about the updated timestamps when they expire.
Therefore, only call ->dirty_inode when I_DIRTY_INODE is set.
Based on a patch from Christoph Hellwig:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325122825.1086872-4-hch@lst.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210112190253.64307-6-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ |
| H A D | fs-writeback.c | e2728c56 Tue Jan 12 13:02:47 CST 2021 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> fs: don't call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
There is no need to call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
(i.e. for __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_TIME)), since by the definition of
lazytime, filesystems must ignore these updates. Filesystems only need
to care about the updated timestamps when they expire.
Therefore, only call ->dirty_inode when I_DIRTY_INODE is set.
Based on a patch from Christoph Hellwig:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325122825.1086872-4-hch@lst.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210112190253.64307-6-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/f2fs/ |
| H A D | super.c | e2728c56 Tue Jan 12 13:02:47 CST 2021 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> fs: don't call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
There is no need to call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
(i.e. for __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_TIME)), since by the definition of
lazytime, filesystems must ignore these updates. Filesystems only need
to care about the updated timestamps when they expire.
Therefore, only call ->dirty_inode when I_DIRTY_INODE is set.
Based on a patch from Christoph Hellwig:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325122825.1086872-4-hch@lst.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210112190253.64307-6-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ext4/ |
| H A D | inode.c | e2728c56 Tue Jan 12 13:02:47 CST 2021 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> fs: don't call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
There is no need to call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
(i.e. for __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_TIME)), since by the definition of
lazytime, filesystems must ignore these updates. Filesystems only need
to care about the updated timestamps when they expire.
Therefore, only call ->dirty_inode when I_DIRTY_INODE is set.
Based on a patch from Christoph Hellwig:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325122825.1086872-4-hch@lst.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210112190253.64307-6-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
|