Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:52:51 +0100 | From | Alasdair G Kergon <> | Subject | Re: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature |
| |
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 04:10:26AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I still disagree with this whole patch.
Same here - if you want a timeout, what stops you from implementing it in a userspace process? If your concern is that the process might die without thawing the filesystem, take a look at the userspace LVM/multipath code for ideas - lock into memory, disable OOM killer, run from ramdisk etc. In practice, those techniques seem to be good enough.
> call can hang and this would be theoretically useful is when the > filesystem is already frozen by someone else, but this should be fixed > by refusing to do the second freeze, as suggested in my comment to patch > 1.
Similarly if a device-mapper device is involved, how should the following sequence behave - A, B or C?
1. dmsetup suspend (freezes) 2. FIFREEZE 3. FITHAW 4. dmsetup resume (thaws)
A: 1 succeeds, freezes 2 succeeds, remains frozen 3 succeeds, remains frozen 4 succeeds, thaws
B: 1 succeeds, freezes 2 fails, remains frozen 3 shouldn't be called because 2 failed but if it is: succeeds, thaws 4 succeeds (already thawed, but still does the device-mapper parts)
C: 1 succeeds, freezes 2 fails, remains frozen 3 fails (because device-mapper owns the freeze/thaw), remains frozen 4 succeeds, thaws
Alasdair -- agk@redhat.com
| |