[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090326230435.GA10884@brong.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:04:35 +1100
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ext3 IO latency measurements (was: Linux 2.6.29)
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:42:09PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > before performing the update. So while relatime doesn't conform, the
> > practical difference is meaningless. You can't depend on atime being
> > updated in a timely manner.
>
> POSIX says a disk write interrupted by a signal can be a short write. If
> you do this in practice all hell breaks loose.
>
> A conforming implementation needs to conform with expectations not just
> play lawyer games with users systems.
Is this the same Alan Cox who thought a couple of months ago that
having an insanely low default maximum number epoll instances was a
reasonable answer to a theoretical DoS risk, despite it breaking
pretty much every reasonable user of the epoll interface?
Bron ( what stable interface? )
--
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