[PATCH RESEND] ubifs: Introduce a mount option of force_atime.

[Dongsheng Yang]

On 06/09/2015 06:55 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 08.06.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
>> -	ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&ui->ui_mutex));
>>   	if (!ui->dirty) {
>> +		if (!locked) {
>> +			/*
>> +			 * It's a little tricky here, there is only one
>> +			 * possible user of ubifs_dirty_inode did not do
>> +			 * a budget for this inode. At the same time, this
>> +			 * user is not holding the ui->ui_mutex. Then if
>> +			 * we found ui->ui_mutex is not locked, we can say:
>> +			 * we need to do a budget in ubifs_dirty_inode here.
>> +			 */
>> +			struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .dirtied_ino = 1,
>> +					.dirtied_ino_d = ALIGN(ui->data_len, 8) };
>> +
>> +			ret = ubifs_budget_space(c, &req);
>> +			if (ret)
>> +				goto out;
>> +		}
>
> So, this is the new case when ->dirty_inode() is called via generic_update_time()?
> Did you research whether you can detect that case also by looking at the flags parameter?
> I'd give I_DIRTY_TIME a try. This way you could get at least rid of the mutex_is_locked()
> usage.

Okey, after a reading, I'm afraid I can not think a better idea
out. The flags between *old* cases and the *new* case can possiblly
be same. Then we can't use the flags to filter the new case from old
cases.

But I think I can append a patch to add a support for lazytime here:
	if (flags == I_DIRTY_TIME)
		return;

Thanx
Yang

>
> Thanks,
> //richard
> .
>