On Tue, 5 September 2006 07:46:44 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> > Direct modification of branches is similar to direct modification of
> > block devices underneith a mounted filesystem. While I agree that
> > such a thing _should_ not oops the kernel, I'd bet that you can easily
> > run a stresstest on a filesystem while randomly flipping bits in the
> > block device and get just that.
>
> Not really a fair comparison. The block level is conceptionally totally
> different than the fs level, while a stackable fs is within the realms of
> the fs level.
Well, I didn't realize that unionfs required its backing filesystems
to be mounted. That's more like having the block device open in a
text editor while mounting ext3. In the presence of such a design, an
oops clearly is not acceptable. And this sort of design is just what
I was talking about when I said:
> > There are bigger problems in unionfs to worry about.
Jörn
--
You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks
occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a
speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is.
-- Rob Pike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
