From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5][TAKE3] fallocate() implementation on i86, x86_64 and powerpc Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:10:44 -0500 Message-ID: <1179403844.13965.2.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070418130600.GW5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070420135146.GA21352@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070420145918.GY355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070424121632.GA10136@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070515193722.GA3487@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070515195421.GA2948@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070515200359.GA5834@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070516031626.GM85884050@sgi.com> <1179318076.10313.6.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> <20070516234036.GQ85884050@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Amit K. Arora" , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, suparna@in.ibm.com, cmm@us.ibm.com To: David Chinner Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070516234036.GQ85884050@sgi.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 09:40 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:21:16AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:16 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > Please don't make this always happen. c/mtime updates should be dependent > > > on the mode being used and whether there is visible change to the file. If no > > > userspace visible changes to the file occurred, then timestamps should not > > > be changed. > > > > i_blocks will be updated, so it seems reasonable to update ctime. mtime > > shouldn't be changed, though, since the contents of the file will be > > unchanged. > > That's assuming blocks were actually allocated - if the prealloc range already > has underlying blocks there is no change and so we should not be changing > mtime either. Only the filesystem will know if it has changed the file, so I > think that timestamp updates need to be driven down to that level, not done > blindy at the highest layer.... Yes, I agree. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center