From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03A5EB64DC for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:57:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231750AbjFVO55 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:57:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34572 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231384AbjFVO5v (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:57:51 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AE611FC6 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C06FC21BB7; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:57:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1687445867; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=L0uLN6wQ85HtOEXkPBAIfkWN0qBQrlhJvrnxaX5jjfM=; b=HjNnNvarQ4oZ95OYljumd+UtwjJ59HnqTs8XjLVTFfyIraEUCpMgT/PXx2e9VI4sYR0BNg 9m4v7iD8tL4nnQZL2L3dul/R7njfg+CYwv93BIXGlTU4ZaMIVsuU3qNgYjTpXqAihTmAOf oidUj5EBCSZJORjFlNOGs21hicr2s9Y= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1687445867; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=L0uLN6wQ85HtOEXkPBAIfkWN0qBQrlhJvrnxaX5jjfM=; b=0tDf4r/W+AGCvhYAH4FIcOq2uMM2GGIplKOIkoU52k7YnYenC5VZBCWbxJE5AtXnQX/QA3 ibC3sQxUmE4EtoAw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0DFA13905; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:57:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id DAUfK2thlGR1JgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:57:47 +0000 Received: by quack3.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 42F7CA0754; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:57:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:57:47 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Jeff Layton Cc: Jan Kara , Christian Brauner , "Tigran A. Aivazian" , Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "damien.lemoal" Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/79] bfs: switch to new ctime accessors Message-ID: <20230622145747.lokguccxtrrpgb3b@quack3> References: <20230621144507.55591-1-jlayton@kernel.org> <20230621144735.55953-1-jlayton@kernel.org> <20230621144735.55953-14-jlayton@kernel.org> <20230621164808.5lhujni7qb36hhtk@quack3> <646b7283ede4945b335ad16aea5ff60e1361241e.camel@kernel.org> <20230622123050.thpf7qdnmidq3thj@quack3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 22-06-23 08:51:58, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 14:30 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 21-06-23 12:57:19, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 18:48 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Wed 21-06-23 10:45:28, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > In later patches, we're going to change how the ctime.tv_nsec field is > > > > > utilized. Switch to using accessor functions instead of raw accesses of > > > > > inode->i_ctime. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/bfs/inode.c b/fs/bfs/inode.c > > > > > index 1926bec2c850..c964316be32b 100644 > > > > > --- a/fs/bfs/inode.c > > > > > +++ b/fs/bfs/inode.c > > > > > @@ -82,10 +82,10 @@ struct inode *bfs_iget(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long ino) > > > > > inode->i_blocks = BFS_FILEBLOCKS(di); > > > > > inode->i_atime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu(di->i_atime); > > > > > inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu(di->i_mtime); > > > > > - inode->i_ctime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu(di->i_ctime); > > > > > + inode_ctime_set_sec(inode, le32_to_cpu(di->i_ctime)); > > > > > inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = 0; > > > > > inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = 0; > > > > > - inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec = 0; > > > > > + inode_ctime_set_nsec(inode, 0); > > > > > > > > So I'm somewhat wondering here - in other filesystem you construct > > > > timespec64 and then use inode_ctime_set(). Here you use > > > > inode_ctime_set_sec() + inode_ctime_set_nsec(). What's the benefit? It > > > > seems these two functions are not used that much some maybe we could just > > > > live with just inode_ctime_set() and constructing timespec64 when needed? > > > > > > > > Honza > > > > > > The main advantage is that by using that, I didn't need to do quite so > > > much of this conversion by hand. My coccinelle skills are pretty > > > primitive. I went with whatever conversion was going to give minimal > > > changes, to the existing accesses for the most part. > > > > > > We could certainly do it the way you suggest, it just means having to > > > re-touch a lot of this code by hand, or someone with better coccinelle > > > chops suggesting a way to declare a temporary variables in place. > > > > Well, maybe temporary variables aren't that convenient but we could provide > > function setting ctime from sec & nsec value without having to declare > > temporary timespec64? Attached is a semantic patch that should deal with > > that - at least it seems to handle all the cases I've found. > > > > Ok, let me try respinning this with your cocci script and see how it > looks. > > Damien also suggested in a reply to the zonefs patch a preference for > the naming style you have above. Should I also rename these like? > > inode_ctime_peek -> inode_get_ctime > inode_ctime_set -> inode_set_ctime > > This would be the time to change it if that's preferred. I don't really care much so whatever you decide is better :) Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR