From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:57:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20170512155704.GF7704@fieldses.org> References: <20170330064724.GA21542@quack2.suse.cz> <1490872308.2694.1.camel@redhat.com> <20170330161231.GA9824@fieldses.org> <1490898932.2667.1.camel@redhat.com> <20170404183138.GC14303@fieldses.org> <878tnfiq7v.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20170405080551.GC8899@quack2.suse.cz> <20170405181409.GC28681@fieldses.org> <20170511185942.GD25434@fieldses.org> <1494586885.2787.3.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , NeilBrown , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1494586885.2787.3.camel@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:01:25AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > This looks reasonable to me (modulo Jan's comment about casting tv_sec > to u64). > > To be clear, I think this is mostly orthogonal to the changes that I was > originally proposing, right? I think we can still benefit from only > bumping and storing i_version values after they've been queried. Definitely, yes. --b.