linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] writeback: support

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: <20090831130125.GC20465@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:01:25 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] writeback: support > 1 flusher thread per bdi

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 02:14:46PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Build on the bdi_writeback support by allowing registration of
> more than 1 flusher thread. File systems can call bdi_add_flusher_task(bdi)
> to add more flusher threads to the device. If they do so, they must also
> provide a super_operations function to return the suitable bdi_writeback
> struct from any given inode.

Please drop this for now.  It adds a lot of unused and untestede code
including a dead on arrival inode operation.

Once we are going to add actual multiple flusher threads we can revise
it.  But I don't think for example that the operation in it's current
form makese too much sense - the most logical way to add multiple
flushers per filesystems would be having multiple bdis of some sort.

--
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/