Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 12 Aug 2022 11:20:36 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, jlayton@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has
 I_DIRTY_INODE
Message-ID: <YvaZ9Jwq5Awu9tl3@sol.localdomain>
References: <20220803105340.17377-1-lczerner@redhat.com>
 <20220803105340.17377-2-lczerner@redhat.com>
 <YuzPWfCuVNkmar2n@sol.localdomain>
 <20220805122306.anavrrmt6lqwd2yt@fedora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220805122306.anavrrmt6lqwd2yt@fedora>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 02:23:06PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > 
> > Also what is the precise meaning of the flags argument to ->dirty_inode now?
> > 
> > 	sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode,
> > 			flags & (I_DIRTY_INODE | I_DIRTY_TIME));
> > 
> > Note that dirty_inode is documented in Documentation/filesystems/vfs.rst.
> 
> Don't know. It alredy don't mention I_DIRTY_SYNC that can be there as
> well.

Well, it didn't really need to because there were only two possibilities:
datasync and not datasync.  This patch changes that.

> Additionaly it can have I_DIRTY_TIME to inform the fs we have a
> dirty timestamp as well (in case of lazytime).

This is introduced by this patch.

- Eric