Re: [PATCH 00/79] fs: new accessors for inode->i_ctime

2023-06-30 Thread Luis Chamberlain
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 03:21:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:45:05 -0400 > Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Most of this conversion was done via coccinelle, with a few of the more > > non-standard accesses done by hand. There should be no behavioral > > changes with this set.

Re: [PATCH 00/79] fs: new accessors for inode->i_ctime

2023-06-23 Thread Christian Brauner
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 03:52:27PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 15:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:45:05 -0400 > > Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > Most of this conversion was done via coccinelle, with a few of the more > > > non-standard accesses done

Re: [PATCH 00/79] fs: new accessors for inode->i_ctime

2023-06-21 Thread Jeff Layton
On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 15:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:45:05 -0400 > Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Most of this conversion was done via coccinelle, with a few of the more > > non-standard accesses done by hand. There should be no behavioral > > changes with this set. That wi

Re: [PATCH 00/79] fs: new accessors for inode->i_ctime

2023-06-21 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:45:05 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > Most of this conversion was done via coccinelle, with a few of the more > non-standard accesses done by hand. There should be no behavioral > changes with this set. That will come later, as we convert individual > filesystems to use multigra