| 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
| ||
|
Message-id: <20080418185447.GA3424@webber.adilger.int> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:54:47 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, sandeen@...hat.com Subject: Re: Delayed allocation and page_lock vs transaction start ordering On Apr 16, 2008 11:38 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 15-04-08 11:08:52, Mingming Cao wrote: > > I guess this reserve locking ordering allows support writepages() for > > ext3/4? What other the benefits? > > Yes, that is one advantage. The other one (which I care about the most) > is that transaction commit code can take page_lock in the new locking order > which is necessary for the new ordered mode rewrite. My understanding is that the main reason for the ordered mode rewrite is specifically to allow delalloc to still support ordered mode semantics. If the lock ordering is changed, and the jbd ordered mode is changed, but we don't support that with delalloc then we will have made a lot of changes (and likely introduced some bugs) with little benefit. My apologies in advance if I misunderstand, and delalloc will be supported with these changes. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- 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