Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:34:31 +0300 (MSK) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Uwe Doering <gemini@geminix.org> Cc: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>, Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>, bug-followup@freebsd.org, "Cai, Quanqing" <caiquanqing@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/67919: Why nobody take serious to fix this bug? Message-ID: <20051102132937.Y7915@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <4366336E.8070601@geminix.org> References: <2b22951e0510302128q571a3c1se111262e88ae19bb@mail.gmail.com> <20051031144056.A92356@mp2.macomnet.net> <20051031162438.I554@is.park.rambler.ru> <20051031170805.T94695@mp2.macomnet.net> <4366336E.8070601@geminix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, 16:08+0100, Uwe Doering wrote: > Maxim Konovalov wrote: > > [...] > > > > > >I was told the patch is incorrect. It works in certain cases but > > > >incorrect in general. > > > > > >Why is it incorrect ? I'm using it for year. > > > > Because you can't just throw away any chunk of data (e.g. it could be > > a meta-data) without a risk to damage a filesystem. > > I wonder, could it really be meta-data? I was under the impression > that meta-data is a filesystem property and is therefore dealt with > in the filesystem code, through i/o buffers. Isn't the VM pager > responsible for handling object contents (files etc.), only? If so, > it would be unfortunate to throw away pages of data but it certainly > wouldn't damage the filesystem. I'm under different (perhaps incorrect) impression. For the record: ps@ just committed to HEAD a rate limit part of your patch with a slightly different implementation. -- Maxim Konovalov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051102132937.Y7915>