linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing device needs stable page writes

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: <5092B060.9070604@panasas.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:24:48 -0700
From:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] bdi: Create a flag to indicate that a backing
 device needs stable page writes

On 11/01/2012 01:59 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
<>
> (all block device inodes share one superblock).
> 

Really? that is not so good is it, for other obvious reasons. 
Why is it not one superblock per BDI? That would be more obvious
to me.

> Thoughts?

It's a really bad design. I think it is worth fixing. For the above
problem, as well as a much better fit with our current thread-per-bdi,
and the rest of the Kernel model. No?

> 
> 									Honza
> 

Thanks
Boaz
--
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