Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:40:18 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lazy syncing of timestamps for special files Message-ID: <4097.898807218@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Jun 1998 19:55:36 %2B1000." <199806250955.TAA13824@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199806250955.TAA13824@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bruce Evans writes:
>>I think the first part of {ffs,ext2}_update() should be put in an
>>ufs_update() function which is called from those two places.
>
>Most of the first part is also duplicated in itimes(). I'd like to
>call itimes() (perhaps renamed) from xxx_update(), but this requires
>reorganising UFS_UPDATE() to distinguish the cases where the atime
>and mtime are just the current time (all cases except xxx_setattr()).
>Perhaps the best reorganisation is to set the atime and mtime in
>xxx_setattr() and clear IN_ACCESS, etc. to reflect the update being
>performed, and not pass the atime and mtime to UFS_UPDATE().
Sounds right to me, vop_setattr() clearly is the odd fish in the
pond, so special-casing that one should make the rest pretty
uniform...
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
"ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4097.898807218>