linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: Use separate super_operations structure for no

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090501142403.GA4493@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 1 May 2009 10:24:03 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: Use separate super_operations structure for
	no_journal filesystems

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 09:48:04AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> So I'm guessing your plans are to have sys_sync() no longer call
> write_super(), but to only call sync_fs()?  If that's the case, I
> think all we need to do is set ext4_nojournal_sops.sync_fs to be
> ext4_commit_super.
> 
> I assume the idea is so that the filesystem can distinguish between
> periodic s_dirt writeback versus a request to write the superblock
> caused by an explicit fsync or sync system call?

Exactly.  The plan is to use write_super only for peridoic writeback,
everything that is used for data integrity will go through ->sync_fs.

We'll grow a couple more ->sync_fs instances, but I think the result
is a lot more logic.  We'll also avoid the mostly useless double
sb writes due to ->write_super being called for both the wait = 0 and
wait = 1 cases in sync.
--
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