[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] mount flag "direct" (fwd)
    "A month of sundays ago Rik van Riel wrote:"
    > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
    > > I assumed that I would need to make several VFS operations atomic
    > > or revertable, or simply forbid things like new file allocations or
    > > extensions (i.e. the above), depending on what is possible or not.
    > > No, I don't want ANY FS. Thanks, I know about these, but they're not
    > > it. I want support for /any/ FS at all at the VFS level.
    > You can't. Even if each operation is fully atomic on one node,
    > you still don't have synchronisation between the different nodes
    > sharing one disk.

    Yes, I do have synchronization - locks are/can be shared between both
    kernels using a device driver mechanism that I implemented. That is
    to say, I can guarantee that atomic operations by each kernel do not
    overlap "on the device", and remain locally ordered at least (and
    hopefully globally, if I get the time thing right).

    It's not that hard - the locks are held on the remote disk by a
    "guardian" driver, to which the drivers on both of the kernels
    communicate. A fake "scsi adapter", if you prefer.

    > You really need filesystem support.

    I don't think so. I think you're not convinced either! But
    I would really like it if you could put your finger on an
    overriding objection.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.022 / U:7.908 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site