On Tue, 9 May 2000, Benhanokh Gabriel wrote:
(snip)
> > More to the point: why do you want to bypass the security system?
> because in my case i would be paying too much, for the an overkill.
> normal appliactions don't care about this zero stuff, since they gonna be
> overwriting it with their own data which needed to be writen to the disk.
> so it is only extra memory copy, but in my case the data should never be
> writen to the disk, so i'm paying with disk access not in memory.
Hang on - first you allocate the block, then you write to it, correct? In
this case, hopefully all you are doing is writing to a block of memory,
which is then written to disk. There's a risk all your new interface
achieves is allocating a block of memory full of zeros, freeing it again,
allocating another block of zeros, writing into it and flushing to disk;
the current behaviour being allocate zeroed block, write to it, flush it.
You don't gain anything that way.
> > XFS has been released. It's not in the mainstream kernels yet, but it's
> > out there.
> is it final or beta release ?
The code itself should be very thoroughly tested, since SGI have been
using XFS in Irix for a while now. The testing and development will be
related to integrating it into Linux. In effect, well tested code, but
with a less well tested interface to the kernel. There isn't really a
"final" release or "beta" release, generally - it'll just be more and more
thoroughly tested, until it gets put into the standard kernel. You'd have
to ask the developers to find out how close that is.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST