[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] mount flag "direct"
"A month of sundays ago David Lang wrote:"
> Peter, the thing that you seem to be missing is that direct mode only
> works for writes, it doesn't force a filesystem to go to the hardware for
> reads.

Yes it does. I've checked! Well, at least I've checked that writing
then reading causes the reads to get to the device driver. I haven't
checked what reading twice does.

If it doesn't cause the data to be read twice, then it ought to, and
I'll fix it (given half a clue as extra pay ..:-)

> for many filesystems you cannot turn off their internal caching of data
> (metadata for some, all data for others)

Well, let's take things one at a time. Put in a VFS mechanism and then
convert some FSs to use it.

> so to implement what you are after you will have to modify the filesystem
> to not cache anything, since you aren't going to do this for every


> filesystem you end up only haivng this option on the one(s) that you
> modify.

I intend to make the generic mechanism attractive.

> if you have a single (or even just a few) filesystems that have this
> option you may as well include the locking/syncing software in them rather
> then modifying the VFS layer.

Why? Are you advocating a particular approach? Yes, I agree that that
is a possible way to go - but I will want the extra VFS ops anyway,
and will want to modify the particular fs to use them, no?

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 13:28    [W:0.063 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site