"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:01:15PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > * We can also further shrink the structure by removing the >> > * z_checkpoint_offset element, since most of the time >> > * z_write_ptr_offset and z_checkpoint_offset will be the same. The >> > * only time they will be different is after a write is interrupted >> > * via an unexpected power removal >> >> This may fall into the nit-picking category, but at runtime I'd expect >> the write pointer and the checkpoint lba to be different more often than >> not, unless you're doing all FUA writes, or are issuing flushes after >> every write. > > Sure, but the only time we care is after an unexpected power removal, > and I would expect that shortly after the system is rebooted, the file > system or userspace storage space application would want to take care > of dealing with recovery right away. > > So I'm not really proposing to track the z_checkpoint_offset except > report writes to the storage device that might have failed due to > power failures, since presumably this is the only time users of this > interface would care. I agree it would be silly to track the checkpoint lba. I only took issue with your comment. ;-) Cheers, Jeff -- 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
