Hi, On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 09:13, Akshat Aranya wrote: > We need to be careful to not perform file system operations that are > specific to the semantics of one particular file > system. Is there any way that you suggest that can get us a nested > transaction (through a VFS operation or an operation exposed by the file > system to VFS) when there's a transaction already associated with the > current process? No. Trouble is, transactions need to be atomic (of course!) but there's only finite space in the journal. We need to know, *before* the transaction starts, whether or not there is space for the transaction in the current journal segment, or whether we have to start a new compound transaction in the journal and potentially do a checkpoint to evict some old space. That's why we can't grow an existing open transaction (or rather, we can't _guarantee_ it --- there are functions to try to expand a transaction so that long-running operations like truncating huge files can try to stay within a single transaction, but the expand can always fail.) Cheers, Stephen _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
