Re: Proposal to improve filesystem/block snapshot interaction

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tuesday 30 October 2007, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 30 October 2007 23:19:48 +0900, Dongjun Shin wrote:
> > On 10/30/07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure. Why shouldn't you be able to reorder the hints provided that
> > > they don't overlap with read/write bios for the same block?
> > 
> > You're right. The bios can be reordered if they don't overlap with hint.
> 
> I would keep things simpler.  Bios can be reordered, full stop.  If an
> erase and a write overlap, the caller (filesystem?) has to add a
> barrier.

I thought bios were already ordered if they affect the same blocks.
Either way, I agree that an erase should not be treated special on
the bio layer, its ordering should be handled the same way we do it
for writes.

	Arnd <><
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux