[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120131114821.c73c4150.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:48:21 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Niels de Vos <ndevos@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"Bryn M. Reeves" <bmr@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs: Invalidate the cache for a parent block-device
if fsync() is called for a partition
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:37:48 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:32:50AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I didn't say the kernel would support this as-is.
> >
> > If the partitioning scheme requires writing to the individual
> > partitions then something would need to be done, such as a simple
> > offsetting DM driver.
>
> Writing partition tables requires writing to them main block device.
This can be done via an offsetting driver.
> Seriously - if people want to support block devices nodes > 16TB dealing
> with this isn't the problem. They'll need to find a way to do buffered
> I/O without using the pagecache to get it right,
why? I don't see the problem - supporting /dev/sdaX should be
straightforward. /dev/sda rarely gets used and would need a bit of
special-case handling.
Please provide all the details as you see them and stop making me email
more questions to you.
> at which point
> blkdev_get_block in either form will simply go away.
--
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