On Tue, 5 September 2006 07:46:44 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > Jörn Engel wrote: > > > > Direct modification of branches is similar to direct modification of > > block devices underneith a mounted filesystem. While I agree that > > such a thing _should_ not oops the kernel, I'd bet that you can easily > > run a stresstest on a filesystem while randomly flipping bits in the > > block device and get just that. > > Not really a fair comparison. The block level is conceptionally totally > different than the fs level, while a stackable fs is within the realms of > the fs level. Well, I didn't realize that unionfs required its backing filesystems to be mounted. That's more like having the block device open in a text editor while mounting ext3. In the presence of such a design, an oops clearly is not acceptable. And this sort of design is just what I was talking about when I said: > > There are bigger problems in unionfs to worry about. Jörn -- You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is. -- Rob Pike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
