[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080929143749.GA13286@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:37:49 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
mtk.manpages@...glemail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 09:36:04AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:52:35PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> >> I think that your concern is that the freezer cannot recognize the occurrence
> >> of a timeout and it continues the backup process and the backup data is
> >> corrupted finally.
> >
> > What timeout should happen? the freeze ioctl must not return until the
> > filesystem is a clean state and all writes are blocked.
>
> The suggestion was that *UN*freeze would return ETIMEDOUT if the
> filesystem had already unfrozen itself, I think. That way you know that
> the snapshot you just took is worthless, at least.
But why would the filesystem every unfreeze itself? That defeats the
whole point of freezing it.
--
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