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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:56:49 +0300 From: Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il> To: David Chinner <dgc@....com> CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com> Subject: Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3 David Chinner wrote: >> Why is it necessary to assume that one filesystem block == one buffer? >> Is it for atomicity, efficiency, or something else? >> > > By definition, really - each filesystem block has it's own state and > it's own disk mapping and so we need something to carry that > information around.... > Well, for block sizes > PAGE_SIZE, you can just duplicate the mapping information (with an offset-in-block bit field) in each page's struct page. But I see from your other posts that there are atomicity and performance reasons as well. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function - 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