Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4949c20e-177f-7952-7870-41f3b3fd791f@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 23:12:37 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 39/92] erofs: convert to ctime accessor functions
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>,
        Yue Hu <huyue2@coolpad.com>,
        Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
References: <20230705185755.579053-1-jlayton@kernel.org>
 <20230705190309.579783-1-jlayton@kernel.org>
 <20230705190309.579783-37-jlayton@kernel.org>
 <20230706110007.dc4tpyt5e6wxi5pt@quack3>
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230706110007.dc4tpyt5e6wxi5pt@quack3>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jan,

On 2023/7/6 19:00, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 05-07-23 15:01:04, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> In later patches, we're going to change how the inode's ctime field is
>> used. Switch to using accessor functions instead of raw accesses of
>> inode->i_ctime.
>>
>> Acked-by: Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> 
> Just one nit below:
> 
>> @@ -176,10 +175,10 @@ static void *erofs_read_inode(struct erofs_buf *buf,
>>   		vi->chunkbits = sb->s_blocksize_bits +
>>   			(vi->chunkformat & EROFS_CHUNK_FORMAT_BLKBITS_MASK);
>>   	}
>> -	inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = inode->i_ctime.tv_sec;
>> -	inode->i_atime.tv_sec = inode->i_ctime.tv_sec;
>> -	inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec;
>> -	inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec;
>> +	inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_sec;
>> +	inode->i_atime.tv_sec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_sec;
>> +	inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_nsec;
>> +	inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = inode_get_ctime(inode).tv_nsec;
> 
> Isn't this just longer way to write:
> 
> 	inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode_get_ctime(inode);

I'm fine with this.  I think we could use this (although I'm not sure
if checkpatch will complain but personally I'm fine.)

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> ?
> 
> 								Honza