[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1180558715.3949.3.camel@garfield>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 02:28:33 +0530
From: Kalpak Shah <kalpak@...sterfs.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Multiple mount protection
On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 03:06 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:39 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > Hi Kalpak,
> >
> > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > > It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem
> > > by adding similar logic to ext2fs_open().
> >
> > Your patch didn't add this logic to ext2fs_open(); it just reserved
> > the space in the superblock.
>
> Yeah the earlier patch for just reserving the fields.
>
> >
> > I don't mind reserving the space so we don't have to worry about
> > conflicting superblock uses, but I'm still on the fence about actually
> > adding this functionality (a) into e2fsprogs, and (b) into the ext4
> > kernel code. I guess it depends on how complicated/icky the
> > implementation code is, I guess.
>
Hi Ted,
So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and
s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the
patches go into ext4? I had attached the patches in the last mail so you
can share your views on them.
Thanks,
Kalpak.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists