Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] timekeeping: new interfaces for multigrain timestamp handing

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 09:07, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The new flag idea is a good one. The catch though is that there are no
> readers of i_version in-kernel other than NFSD and IMA, so there would
> be no in-kernel users of I_VERSION_QUERIED_STRICT.

I actually see that as an absolute positive.

I think we should *conceptually* do those two flags, but then realize
that there are no users of the STRICT version, and just skip it.

So practically speaking, we'd end up with just a weaker version of
I_VERSION_QUERIED that is that "I don't care about atime" case.

I really can't find any use that would *want* to see i_version updates
for any atime updates. Ever.

We may have had historical user interfaces for i_version, but I can't
find any currently.

But to be very very clear: I've only done some random grepping, and I
may have missed something. I'm not dismissing Dave's worries, and he
may well be entirely correct.

Somebody would need to do a much more careful check than my "I can't
find anything".

             Linus