Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:02:33 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: hfs support for blocksize != 512 |
| |
Hi,
> Darnit, documentation on filesystem locking is there for purpose. First > folks complain about its absence, then they don't bother to read the > bloody thing once it is there. Furrfu...
It's great that it's there, but still doesn't tell you everything.
> Said that, handling of indirect blocks used to be badly b0rken on all > normal filesystems and it had been fixed only on ext2, so I wouldn't be > amazed if regular files were bad on B-tree style filesystems. Directories > are easy - all requests are process-synchronous (no pageout), no > truncate() in sight, so the life is better.
I don't think that files are that easy, at least from what I know now from hfs. For example reading from a file might require a read from a btree file (extent file), with what another file write can be busy with (e.g. reordering the btree nodes). I really would prefer that a fs could sleep _and_ can use semaphores, that would keep locking simple, otherwise it gets only a fscking mess.
bye, Roman
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |