Alexander Block
2012-Jun-15 07:49 UTC
[PATCH v2] Btrfs: don''t update atime on RO subvolumes
Before the update_time inode operation was indroduced, it was
not possible to prevent updates of atime on RO subvolumes. VFS
was only able to check for RO on the mount, but did not know
anything about btrfs subvolumes.
btrfs_update_time does now check if the root is RO and skip
updating of times.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Block <ablock84@googlemail.com>
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 5 +++++
fs/inode.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index f6ab6f5..4d0ceed 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -4478,6 +4478,11 @@ int btrfs_dirty_inode(struct inode *inode)
static int btrfs_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *now,
int flags)
{
+ struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(inode)->root;
+
+ if (btrfs_root_readonly(root))
+ return -EROFS;
+
if (flags & S_VERSION)
inode_inc_iversion(inode);
if (flags & S_CTIME)
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index c99163b..033529e 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1551,6 +1551,8 @@ void touch_atime(struct path *path)
* Btrfs), but since we touch atime while walking down the path we
* really don''t care if we failed to update the atime of the file,
* so just ignore the return value.
+ * We may also fail on filesystems that have the ability to make parts
+ * of the fs read only, e.g. subvolumes in Btrfs.
*/
update_time(inode, &now, S_ATIME);
mnt_drop_write(mnt);
--
1.7.10
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 06/15/2012 03:49 PM, Alexander Block wrote:> Before the update_time inode operation was indroduced, it was > not possible to prevent updates of atime on RO subvolumes. VFS > was only able to check for RO on the mount, but did not know > anything about btrfs subvolumes. > > btrfs_update_time does now check if the root is RO and skip > updating of times. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Block <ablock84@googlemail.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/inode.c | 5 +++++ > fs/inode.c | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c > index f6ab6f5..4d0ceed 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c > @@ -4478,6 +4478,11 @@ int btrfs_dirty_inode(struct inode *inode) > static int btrfs_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *now, > int flags) > { > + struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(inode)->root; > + > + if (btrfs_root_readonly(root)) > + return -EROFS; > +It also needs to acquire root->fs_info->subvol_sem, doesn''t it? thanks, liubo> if (flags & S_VERSION) > inode_inc_iversion(inode); > if (flags & S_CTIME) > diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c > index c99163b..033529e 100644 > --- a/fs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/inode.c > @@ -1551,6 +1551,8 @@ void touch_atime(struct path *path) > * Btrfs), but since we touch atime while walking down the path we > * really don''t care if we failed to update the atime of the file, > * so just ignore the return value. > + * We may also fail on filesystems that have the ability to make parts > + * of the fs read only, e.g. subvolumes in Btrfs. > */ > update_time(inode, &now, S_ATIME); > mnt_drop_write(mnt);-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alexander Block
2012-Jun-15 09:18 UTC
Re: [PATCH v2] Btrfs: don''t update atime on RO subvolumes
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c >> index f6ab6f5..4d0ceed 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c >> @@ -4478,6 +4478,11 @@ int btrfs_dirty_inode(struct inode *inode) >> static int btrfs_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *now, >> int flags) >> { >> + struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(inode)->root; >> + >> + if (btrfs_root_readonly(root)) >> + return -EROFS; >> + > > > It also needs to acquire root->fs_info->subvol_sem, doesn''t it? > > thanks, > liubo >Normally yes I think. But does it matter at this point? If the flags are modified at the same time as we access them, wouldn''t it be still random which value (old/new) we get, even with subvol_sem? (sorry for the double mail Liu...as always forgot Reply All) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 06/15/2012 05:18 PM, Alexander Block wrote:> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c >>> index f6ab6f5..4d0ceed 100644 >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c >>> @@ -4478,6 +4478,11 @@ int btrfs_dirty_inode(struct inode *inode) >>> static int btrfs_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *now, >>> int flags) >>> { >>> + struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(inode)->root; >>> + >>> + if (btrfs_root_readonly(root)) >>> + return -EROFS; >>> + >> >> It also needs to acquire root->fs_info->subvol_sem, doesn''t it? >> >> thanks, >> liubo >> > > Normally yes I think. But does it matter at this point? If the flags are > modified at the same time as we access them, wouldn''t it be still > random which value (old/new) we get, even with subvol_sem? > > (sorry for the double mail Liu...as always forgot Reply All) >I find other callers use btrfs_root_readonly without subvol_sem either, anyway, I''m ok with this patch. thanks, liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html