Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:34:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-pre1-r499012 (2007-01-23) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.0-pre1-r499012 Received: from mail.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l8JFXbuw030965 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:33:41 -0700 Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lst.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id l8JB4dA5003826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:04:39 +0200 Received: (from hch@localhost) by verein.lst.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id l8JB4dDZ003824; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:04:39 +0200 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:04:38 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] simplify xfs_vn_getattr Message-ID: <20070919110438.GB3703@lst.de> References: <20070914162757.GD7110@lst.de> <46F08F98.9070102@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46F08F98.9070102@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-archive-position: 12944 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: hch@lst.de Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:55:20PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > Why do we copy the atime from the inode and not the xfs_inode? > > I think I see what's the deal here - the atime in the inode is > the authoritative atime. It gets updated from various places and > we synchronise it to the xfs inode before flushing the xfs inode > to disk. This means we shouldn't be using the atime in the > xfs_inode because it will be stale - is this correct? Yes. atime is updated by the vfs without callouts to the filesystem in various places unfortunately.