[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature

To: hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:22:56 +0200
Cc: miklos@xxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, pavel@xxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxxxx, mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080709061621.GA5260@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from Christoph Hellwig on Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:16:21 -0400)
References: <20080630212450t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080701081026.GB16691@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080707110730.GG5643@xxxxxx> <20080708231026.GP11558@disturbed> <20080708232031.GE18195@xxxxxxxxxx> <20080709005254.GQ11558@disturbed> <20080709010922.GE9957@xxxxxxx> <E1KGSvZ-0006dB-53@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080709061621.GA5260@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:13:21AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > This would mean that freeze and thaw will have to be done on the same
> > file descriptor, but this isn't unreasonable to expect, is it?
> It is certainly not the current use case, where you run one command
> to freeze the filesystem and another one to unfreeze it.

So instead of

  freeze_fs mountpoint
  unfreeze_fs mountpoint

the user would have do to

  run_freezed mountpoint backup-command

I find the second one nicer, regardless of any reliability issues.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>