lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree
On Wed 04-01-12 13:47:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 04-01-12 13:50:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:17:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > I'm still not
> > > > sure about ->statfs(), BTW - any input on that would be welcome. Can
> > > > it end up blocked on a frozen fs until said fs is thawed?
> > >
> > > I don't see why this should ever happen - ->statfs has to work on
> > > read-only filesystems so shoul dnot be modifying state, and hence
> > > should never need to care about the frozen state of the superblock.
> > Well, I'm also not aware of a filesystem where ->statfs would wait on
> > frozen filesystem. Just note that e.g. for stat(2) frozen filesystem and
> > RO filesystem *are* different because of atime updates. So stat(2) can
> > block on frozen fs because of atime update while on RO filesystem it is
> > just fine.
>
> Neither of those should cause atime updates.
Sorry, I'm not sure why I thought stat(2) would touch atime. But still my
claim is correct in the sence that operations that do touch atime
(follow_link, readdir, ...) behave differently on frozen filesystem and on
read-only filesystem. So rDave's argument that read-only access to frozen
filesystem is OK is not correct in general.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-04 23:29    [W:0.052 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site