lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Loop devices under NTFS
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Adam J. Richter wrote:
[snip]
> Here are the three approaches that I can think of and their
> major pros and cons:
>
> 1. Make loop.c never use {prepare,commit}_write.
> 2. As you mention (but do not endorse) in your posting to gfs-devel,
> modify loop.c so that it does not use {prepare,commit}_write
> on OpenGFS, but does on other file systems (to avoid a data copy).
> 3. Make OpenGFS (and potentially other future file systems)
> export a {prepare,commit}_write that works with loop.c, as
> documented in Documentation/filesystem/Locking.

And why not 4., have a per fs flag (say fs_{,set_,clear_,}generic_aops())
(or per superblock flag or whatever, perhaps a per address space flag
even?) specifying whether the fs' aops support loop or not. loop.c then
simply does:

if (fs_generic_aops()/fs_aops_support_loop()/whatever...)
use aops ->readpage and ->{prepare,commit}_write
else
use fops ->read and ->write

I guess that is like point 2, just making it a simple generic mechanism so
that loop always works yet users of address spaces are free to implement
their ->readpage and ->{prepare,commit}_write anything they want...

Best regards,

Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/

-
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 13:28    [W:0.026 / U:3.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site