On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:48 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:43:22PM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > Hmm, was thinking about this while driving home - the forker approach > > has a good resilience property - if it cannot fork - it'll do the stuff > > itself. I have a feeling that if something like this to be implemented > > with the approach I suggested, we'll end up with similar level of > > complexity that we wanted to get rid of... > > Yes, the lazy starting is what adds the complexity. I think starting > it once we have any filesystem mounted on the bdi and stop it once all > filesystems are gone is a lot simpler and more elegant. But what about cases like 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda4'? They also involve dirty data write-back. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий) -- 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
