MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130627044705.GB29790@dastard>
References: <87ehbpntuk.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
	<20130626231143.GC28426@dastard>
	<87wqpg76ls.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
	<20130627044705.GB29790@dastard>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:50:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEsagEjP6jGhcZObr4QhNxsa=9ZxR5QTfxU+9YHg7GxFx+QuJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize wait_sb_inodes()
From: Daniel Phillips <daniel.raymond.phillips@gmail.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tux3@tux3.org" <tux3@tux3.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1125
Lines: 26

Hi Dave,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> You have your own wait code, that doesn't make what the VFS does
> unnecesary. Quite frankly, I don't trust individual filesystems to
> get it right - there's a long history of filesystem specific data
> sync problems (including in XFS), and the best way to avoid that is
> to ensure the VFS gets it right for you.

I agree that some of the methods Tux3 uses to implement data integrity, sync
and friends may be worth lifting up to core, or better, to a library,
but we will
all be better served if such methods are given time to mature first. After all,
that basically describes the entire evolution of the VFS: new concepts start
in a filesystem, prove themselves useful, then may be lifted up to be shared.

It is important to get the order right: prove first, then lift.

Regards,

Daniel
--
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/