[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEsagEjP6jGhcZObr4QhNxsa=9ZxR5QTfxU+9YHg7GxFx+QuJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:50:51 -0700
From: Daniel Phillips <daniel.raymond.phillips@...il.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tux3@...3.org" <tux3@...3.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize wait_sb_inodes()
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> You have your own wait code, that doesn't make what the VFS does
> unnecesary. Quite frankly, I don't trust individual filesystems to
> get it right - there's a long history of filesystem specific data
> sync problems (including in XFS), and the best way to avoid that is
> to ensure the VFS gets it right for you.
I agree that some of the methods Tux3 uses to implement data integrity, sync
and friends may be worth lifting up to core, or better, to a library,
but we will
all be better served if such methods are given time to mature first. After all,
that basically describes the entire evolution of the VFS: new concepts start
in a filesystem, prove themselves useful, then may be lifted up to be shared.
It is important to get the order right: prove first, then lift.
Regards,
Daniel
--
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