[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D03621.5080501@rtr.ca>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:01:53 -0400
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:17:08AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> The better solution seems to be the rather obvious one:
>>
>> the filesystem should commit data to disk before altering metadata.
>
> Generalities are bad. For example:
>
> write();
> unlink();
> <do more stuff>
> close();
>
> This is a clear case where you want metadata changed before data is
> committed to disk. In many cases, you don't even want the data to
> hit the disk here.
..
Err, no actually. I want a consistent disk state,
either all old or all new data after a crash.
Not loss of BOTH new and old data.
And the example above is trying to show, what??
Looks like a temporary file case, except the code
is buggy and should be doing the unlink() before
the write() call.
But thanks for looking at this stuff!
--
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