Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Locking\s+bmap\s+mappings\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:23:41 +0200
In ext2 and most other file systems it is enough to hold the inode semaphore to blocks returned by bmap (because truncate and unlink are the only functions that could steal blocks from under you). Th
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00304.html (10,155 bytes)

2. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:21:04 -0500
to pin hat because it is ement invalidated? You are correct, except for the fact that xfs is doing its own locking under the covers internally. These should be protecting XFS from stamping on itself
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00377.html (11,881 bytes)

3. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:28:50 +0200
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The locking is required for external users, e.g. the loop device (the current version doesn't do it, but it will be fixed to do so). loop device cannot access an
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00385.html (8,849 bytes)

4. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:23:32 -0500
OK, that's a different kettle of fish.... Steve
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00387.html (7,646 bytes)

5. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:36:59 +0200
It would be nice if you could commit (or whatever ptools calls that) it. Thanks, -Andi
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00391.html (8,175 bytes)

6. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:41:18 -0500
l ll Actually, things are somewhat more broken that this, XFS does not provide prepare_write or commit_write address space operations, so I presume this means under loopback we would be at best a re
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00398.html (8,243 bytes)

7. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:24:40 +0200
That's currently the case yes. The plan however is to turn loopback into a block remapper similar to LVM. It would do direct IO on bmap'ed mappings then (with some special hacks to fill holes -- loop
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00400.html (9,178 bytes)

8. Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:23:41 +0200
In ext2 and most other file systems it is enough to hold the inode semaphore to blocks returned by bmap (because truncate and unlink are the only functions that could steal blocks from under you). Th
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00771.html (10,155 bytes)

9. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:21:04 -0500
to pin hat because it is ement invalidated? You are correct, except for the fact that xfs is doing its own locking under the covers internally. These should be protecting XFS from stamping on itself
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00844.html (11,881 bytes)

10. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:28:50 +0200
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The locking is required for external users, e.g. the loop device (the current version doesn't do it, but it will be fixed to do so). loop device cannot access an
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00852.html (8,849 bytes)

11. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:23:32 -0500
OK, that's a different kettle of fish.... Steve
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00854.html (7,646 bytes)

12. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:36:59 +0200
It would be nice if you could commit (or whatever ptools calls that) it. Thanks, -Andi
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00858.html (8,175 bytes)

13. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:41:18 -0500
l ll Actually, things are somewhat more broken that this, XFS does not provide prepare_write or commit_write address space operations, so I presume this means under loopback we would be at best a re
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00865.html (8,243 bytes)

14. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:24:40 +0200
That's currently the case yes. The plan however is to turn loopback into a block remapper similar to LVM. It would do direct IO on bmap'ed mappings then (with some special hacks to fill holes -- loop
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg00867.html (9,178 bytes)

15. Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:23:41 +0200
In ext2 and most other file systems it is enough to hold the inode semaphore to pin blocks returned by bmap (because truncate and unlink are the only functions that could steal blocks from under you)
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg01238.html (10,155 bytes)

16. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:21:04 -0500
to pin hat because it is ement invalidated? You are correct, except for the fact that xfs is doing its own locking under the covers internally. These should be protecting XFS from stamping on itself
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg01311.html (11,947 bytes)

17. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:28:50 +0200
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The locking is required for external users, e.g. the loop device (the current version doesn't do it, but it will be fixed to do so). loop device cannot access an
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg01319.html (8,985 bytes)

18. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:23:32 -0500
OK, that's a different kettle of fish.... Steve
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg01321.html (7,712 bytes)

19. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:36:59 +0200
It would be nice if you could commit (or whatever ptools calls that) it. Thanks, -Andi
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg01325.html (8,311 bytes)

20. Re: Locking bmap mappings (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:41:18 -0500
l ll Actually, things are somewhat more broken that this, XFS does not provide prepare_write or commit_write address space operations, so I presume this means under loopback we would be at best a re
/archives/xfs/2000-08/msg01332.html (8,309 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu