[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <606DB4F9-C7D5-4853-B1FB-CF15E96AC037@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:42:48 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>
To: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
Cc: "adilger@...ger.ca" <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Do we really need parallel resizer?
I don't care particularly about parallel resize being a common usage. My only concern is to prevent filesystem corruption in case it happens by accident.
I'm not sure why you think it is better to have a flag to indicate resize in progress instead of just having a lock.
If you could please explain the benefit of this then it is possible to make a decision on why this code should be changed.
Cheers, Andreas
On 2011-06-24, at 8:17 PM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> I noticed that resize is protected by resize_lock. Then parallel
>> resizer works. However, I think there is no need to make parallel
>> resizer work.
>>
>> I think we can use an atomic integer 'resize_flag' instead of
>> resize_lock, resize_flag is set to 1 before the kernel does resizing
>> work, while resize_flag is set to 0 after the kernel finishes
>> resizing work. Resizing is allowed only if resize_flag is 0. If
>> resize_flag is 1, kernel returns -EBUSY to userspace.
> Sorry, I made an error. we should use an integer protected by resize_lock.
>
> Yongqiang.
>>
>> What about your opinion?
>>
>> Yongqiang.
>>
>> --
>> Best Wishes
>> Yongqiang Yang
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes
> Yongqiang Yang
--
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