Re: [rfc][patch 3/4] fs: new truncate sequence

[Nick Piggin]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:58AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 05:02:57PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > That's kind of why I liked it in inode_setattr better.
> > 
> > But if the filesystem defines its own ->setattr, then it could simply
> > not define a ->setsize and do the right thing in setattr. So this
> > calling convention seems not too bad.
> 
> Or the filesystem could just call into it's own setattr method
> internally.  For that we'd switch back to passing the iattr to
> ->setsize.  For a filesystem that doesn't do anything special for
> ATTR_SIZE ->setsize could point to the same function as ->setattr.
> 
> For filesystem where's it's really different they could be separate or
> share helpers.

OK, so what do you suggest? If the filesystem defines
->setsize then do not pass ATTR_SIZE changes into setattr?
But then do you also not pass in ATTR_TIME cchanges to setattr
iff they  are together with ATTR_SIZE change? It sees also like
quite a difficult calling convention.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/