On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I dunno. Maybe there is some fundamental reason why the above is
> broken, but it seems to be a much simpler approach. Sure, you need to
> guarantee that the people who get the write-lock cannot possibly cause
> IO while holding it, but since the only reason to get the write lock
> would be to change the block size, that should be pretty simple, no?
Here is a *COMPLETELY* untested patch. Caveat emptor. It will probably
do unspeakable things to your family and pets.
Linus
Attachment:
patch.diff
Description: Binary data
