[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070316145855.5604d7d8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:58:55 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] revoke: core code
> I'm not sure that running do_fsync() will guarantee that all sys_write()
> callers will have finished their syscall. Probably they will have, in
> practice. But there is logic in the sync paths to deliberately bale out
> if we're competing with ongoing dirtyings, to avoid livelocking.
For device files you really need to call into the device driver for this
(->flush etc).
> However, modifying i_size like this might be a problem - the inode could be
> dirty and it'll get written to disk! Perhaps we could change i_size_read()
> to cheat and to return zero if there's a revoke in progress.
The cheating is a bit messier than that - you might be revoking on a
cluster file system and I'm still trying to get my head around what the
semantics for that are. Lying about sizes will break the coherency
protocols I think
Serious question - do we actually need revoke() on a normal file ? BSD
has never had this, SYS5 has never had this.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists