Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:01:10 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/22][RFC] Unionfs: Stackable Namespace Unification Filesystem |
| |
On Tue, 5 September 2006 07:46:44 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > Jörn Engel wrote: > > > > Direct modification of branches is similar to direct modification of > > block devices underneith a mounted filesystem. While I agree that > > such a thing _should_ not oops the kernel, I'd bet that you can easily > > run a stresstest on a filesystem while randomly flipping bits in the > > block device and get just that. > > Not really a fair comparison. The block level is conceptionally totally > different than the fs level, while a stackable fs is within the realms of > the fs level.
Well, I didn't realize that unionfs required its backing filesystems to be mounted. That's more like having the block device open in a text editor while mounting ext3. In the presence of such a design, an oops clearly is not acceptable. And this sort of design is just what I was talking about when I said:
> > There are bigger problems in unionfs to worry about.
Jörn
-- You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is. -- Rob Pike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |