Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:40:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:40:17 -0500 Received: from CPEdeadbeef0000.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([24.100.234.67]:4868 "HELO coredump.sh0n.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:40:05 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:40:56 -0500 (EST) From: Shawn Starr To: Rik van Riel cc: Hans Reiser , Subject: Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org My worry is this. If we have different filesystems having their own page buffer/caching daemons we'll definately introduce race conditions. Say have 2 hard drives with ReiserFS and EXT3 and im copying data between the two and each of them has their own daemons its going to get pretty messy no? On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Shawn Starr wrote: > > > But why should each filesystem have to have a different method of > > buffering/caching? that just doesn't fit the layered model of the > > kernel IMHO. > > I think Hans will give up the idea once he realises the > performance implications. ;) > > Rik > -- > "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" > -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document > > http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ > > > - 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/