From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181203083416.28978-1-david@fromorbit.com> <20181203083416.28978-8-david@fromorbit.com> In-Reply-To: <20181203083416.28978-8-david@fromorbit.com> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:47:39 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] vfs: copy_file_range should update file timestamps Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel , linux-xfs , Olga Kornievskaia , Linux NFS Mailing List , overlayfs , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:34 AM Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner > > Timestamps are not updated right now, so programs looking for > timestamp updates for file modifications (like rsync) will not > detect that files have changed. We are also accessing the source > data when doing a copy (but not when cloning) so we need to update > atime on the source file as well. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > --- > fs/read_write.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > index 3b101183ea19..3288db1d5f21 100644 > --- a/fs/read_write.c > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > @@ -1576,6 +1576,16 @@ static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > { > ssize_t ret; > > + /* Update source timestamps, because we are accessing file data */ > + file_accessed(file_in); > + > + /* Update destination timestamps, since we can alter file contents. */ > + if (!(file_out->f_mode & FMODE_NOCMTIME)) { > + ret = file_update_time(file_out); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > + If there is a consistency about who is responsible of calling file_accessed() and file_update_time() it eludes me. grep tells me that they are mostly handled by filesystem code or generic helpers called by filesystem code and not in the vfs helpers. FMODE_NOCMTIME seems like an xfs specific flag (for DMAPI?), which most generic callers of file_update_time() completely ignore. This seems like another argument in favor of leaving the responsibility of the timestamp updates to the filesystem. Maybe I am missing something? Thanks, Amir.