Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> ...
> > We just want ext3/jbd to make sure that it only calls bh2jh on
> > an unlocked buffer... is that easy?
>
> That's the question indeed, someone with a good grasp of jbd should make
> that call. If that is the only 'violator' (depending on your point of
> view), then yes lets just fix that up and say that the above is pb
> private is valid.
We really don't want to do this, please. Changing things so
that we can only run bh2jh() and, particularly, journal_add_journal_head()
on a locked buffer would involve fairly unpleasant surgery against
parts of ext3 which are already prone to exploding. Like
do_get_write_access().
If it was needed for 2.5 then hmm, maybe. But as this is only a
2.4 problem then I really don't think we should risk breaking
or slowing down the filesystem for this.
Look, it's easy: delete buffer_head.b_inode (which is only used as
a boolean), move its function to a b_state bit. Add a new
buffer_head.ext3_hack and we can use that for pointing at the journal_head.
<insert "stable kernel" mantra here ;)>
-
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:12 EST