lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:22:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Actually, I believe requirements are same.
> > >
> > > 'don't do i/o in dangerous period'.
> > >
> > > swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That
> > > provides consistent-enough state...
> >
> > As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do
> > I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync'
> > prevent filesystems from doing I/O.....
>
> Well, it seems we can handle this on the block layer level, by temporarily
> replacing the elevator with something that will selectively prevent fs I/O
> from reaching the layers below it.
>
> I talked with Jens about it on a very general level, but it seems doable at
> first sight.

Why would you hack the blok layer when we already have a perfectly fine
facility to archive what you want? freeze_bdev is there exactly for the
purpose to make the filesystem consistant on disk and then freeze all
I/O.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-30 08:15    [W:0.099 / U:2.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site