lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
    On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:22:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > > Actually, I believe requirements are same.
    > > >
    > > > 'don't do i/o in dangerous period'.
    > > >
    > > > swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That
    > > > provides consistent-enough state...
    > >
    > > As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do
    > > I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync'
    > > prevent filesystems from doing I/O.....
    >
    > Well, it seems we can handle this on the block layer level, by temporarily
    > replacing the elevator with something that will selectively prevent fs I/O
    > from reaching the layers below it.
    >
    > I talked with Jens about it on a very general level, but it seems doable at
    > first sight.

    Why would you hack the blok layer when we already have a perfectly fine
    facility to archive what you want? freeze_bdev is there exactly for the
    purpose to make the filesystem consistant on disk and then freeze all
    I/O.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-30 08:15    [W:4.541 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site