| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:50:51 -0700 From: Daniel Phillips <daniel.raymond.phillips@...il.com> To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>, "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "tux3@...3.org" <tux3@...3.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize wait_sb_inodes() Hi Dave, On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote: > You have your own wait code, that doesn't make what the VFS does > unnecesary. Quite frankly, I don't trust individual filesystems to > get it right - there's a long history of filesystem specific data > sync problems (including in XFS), and the best way to avoid that is > to ensure the VFS gets it right for you. I agree that some of the methods Tux3 uses to implement data integrity, sync and friends may be worth lifting up to core, or better, to a library, but we will all be better served if such methods are given time to mature first. After all, that basically describes the entire evolution of the VFS: new concepts start in a filesystem, prove themselves useful, then may be lifted up to be shared. It is important to get the order right: prove first, then lift. Regards, Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists