Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:33:32 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] loop.c patches, take two |
| |
Ben Slusky <sluskyb@paranoiacs.org> wrote: > > Well, it appears that neither my loop.c patches nor Andrew's were merged > into 2.6.0... I'd request that my patches be merged into mainline, > since Jari Ruusu has pointed out that Andrew's patch (which removes the > separate code path for block-backed loop devices) will break journaling > filesystems on loop devices. Right now, journaling FS's on file-backed > loop devices are kinda iffy (they will work only if the underlying FS is > also journaled, with the correct journal options) but journaling FS's > on block-backed loop devices work perfectly. Andrew's patches would > break this.
I'm not sure how important this is?
Remember that one of the reasons for dropping the block-backed special case was that it ran like crap under heavy load. It locked up, iirc. Has that been fixed 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/
| |