[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:36:04 -0500
Cc: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxxxx, mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080929141326.GA31781@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20080908205337t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080908171119.GB22521@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48DBFD42.6030307@xxxxxxxxxx> <D0B0D91F884647D6808626CDFF81E532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080929141326.GA31781@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20080914)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:52:35PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
>> I think that your concern is that the freezer cannot recognize the occurrence
>> of a timeout and it continues the backup process and the backup data is
>> corrupted finally.
> What timeout should happen?  the freeze ioctl must not return until the
> filesystem is a clean state and all writes are blocked.

The suggestion was that *UN*freeze would return ETIMEDOUT if the
filesystem had already unfrozen itself, I think.  That way you know that
the snapshot you just took is worthless, at least.

I'm still not really sold on the timeout, but I think the above was the


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