lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] SMP race in ext2 - metadata corruption.
    On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:14:37PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
    > You don't need block device for fsck, in fact some OS require you use
    > character devices (e.g. Solaris).

    Moving e2fsck into the kernel is a completly different matter than
    caching the blockdevice accesses with pagecache instead of buffercache.

    And even if you move e2fsck or reiserfsck into the kernel (you could
    technically do that just now regardless of where the block_dev cache
    lives) there will still be partd that wants to mmap the blockdevice to
    get rid of part of the fat32 partition (right now it uses read/write of
    course because buffer cache cannot be mapped in userspace), there will
    still be mtools, not self caching dbms, od </dev/hda, dd of=/dev/hda
    etc..etc..etc.. that makes block_dev still *very* useful.

    > I'm not saying we don't need block devices, but I really don't see
    > much of a use for them once everything in in the page cache... I
    > assume this is why others have got rid of them completely.

    I have no idea why/if other got rid of it completly, but the fact block_dev
    is useful has nothing to do if it's in pagecache or in buffercache,
    really. It's just that by doing it in pagecache you can mmap it as well
    and it will provide overall better performance and it's probably cleaner
    design. The only visible change is that you will be able to mmap a
    blockdevice as well.

    About a kernel based fsck Alexander told me he likes it, I personally
    don't care about it that much because I believe there's not that much to
    share at the source level, fsck and real fs are quite different
    problems, and what can be shared can be copied and by not sharing we get
    the flexibility of not breaking fsck every time we change the kernel and
    more in general the flexibility of doing it in userspace, sharing such
    bytecode at runtime definitely doesn't matter. It also partly depends
    from the fs but current ext2 situation is really fine to me and I
    wouldn't consier a wortwhile project to move e2fsck into the kernel.

    Andrea
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.025 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site