Re: [PATCH 5/6] xfs: don't modify file attributes or poke fsnotify for dry runs
"Darrick J. Wong" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs,org.kernel.vger.stable |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260819232445.GE6072@frogsfrogsfrogs> |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:24:21PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:26:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <[email protected]> > > > > LOLLM points out that a dry run shouldn't poke fsnotify because we don't > > actually change the files. I noticed that we also shouldn't be removing > > file privileges when doing a dry run. > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c > > @@ -701,6 +701,9 @@ xfs_exchrange_contents( > > if (error) > > goto out_unlock; > > > > + if (fxr->flags & XFS_EXCHANGE_RANGE_DRY_RUN) > > + goto out_unlock; > > + > > /* > > * Finish the exchange by removing special file privileges like any > > * other file write would do. This may involve turning on support for > > This just skip removing the privileges. I guess the commit mentions > this on the side, but this is probably the important part, so my > emphasis it? It would also seem easier to move the check into > xfs_exchange_range_finish next to the code that it guards. Yeah, I'll move it, and rearrange the commit message. > > @@ -783,6 +786,9 @@ xfs_exchange_range( > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > + if (fxr->flags & XFS_EXCHANGE_RANGE_DRY_RUN) > > + return 0; > > + > > fsnotify_modify(fxr->file1); > > if (fxr->file2 != fxr->file1) > > fsnotify_modify(fxr->file2); > > Move the fsnotify calls into an if statement instead of the > early return? Done. --D