[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c979fa45-8878-4e40-9060-c3e929eebbab@default>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, ngupta@...are.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, adilger@....com, tytso@....edu,
mfasheh@...e.com, Joel Becker <joel.becker@...cle.com>,
matthew@....cx, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, jeremy@...p.org, JBeulich@...ell.com,
Kurt Hackel <kurt.hackel@...cle.com>, npiggin@...e.de,
Dave Mccracken <dave.mccracken@...cle.com>, riel@...hat.com,
avi@...hat.com, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 0/8] Cleancache: overview
> From: Dan Magenheimer
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 0/8] Cleancache: overview
>
> > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@...radead.org]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/8] Cleancache: overview
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:58:03AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > CHRISTOPH AND ANDREW, if you disagree and your concerns have
> > > not been resolved, please speak up.
>
> Hi Christoph --
>
> Thanks very much for the quick (instantaneous?) reply!
>
> > Anything that need modification of a normal non-shared fs is utterly
> > broken and you'll get a clear NAK, so the propsal before is a good
> > one.
>
> Unless/until all filesystems are 100% built on top of VFS,
> I have to disagree. Abstractions (e.g. VFS) are never perfect.
After thinking about this some more, I can see a way
to enforce "opt-in" in the cleancache backend without
any changes to non-generic fs code. I think it's a horrible
hack and we can try it, but I expect fs maintainers
would prefer the explicit one-line-patch opt-in.
1) Cleancache backend maintains a list of "known working"
filesystems (those that have been tested).
2) Nitin's proposed changes pass the *sb as a parameter.
The string name of the filesystem type is available via
sb->s_type->name. This can be compared against
the "known working" list.
Using the sb pointer as a "handle" requires an extra
table search on every cleancache get/put/flush,
and fs/super.c changes are required for fs unmount
notification anyway (e.g. to call cleancache_flush_fs)
so I'd prefer to keep the cleancache_poolid addition
to the sb. I'll assume this is OK since this is in generic
fs code.
Dan
--
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