Hi,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:25:25 +0300 (MSK), Khimenko Victor
<khim@dell.sch57.msk.ru> said:
>> Why? I see no problem with the semantics, "you remove an active floppy,
>> all outstanding activity is lost." As long as the kernel doesn't defer
>> IO unnecessarily, that's just fine.
> Ok, it's fine for DOS where all activity come from user. It's NOT Ok for
> multiuser OS with "it's own life" (deamons :-) like Linux.
If you have the O/S playing around in the background on removable media,
then you have other problems. I don't think that's a valid objection
--- quite the opposite, in a multiuser environment you _have_ to avoid
prompting the user to recover from a media-change event.
>> The old behaviour of some desktop OSes of tracking multiple "mounted"
>> floppies at once arose in the times when many machines had nothing
>> _except_ floppy drives, and good management of multiple concurrent
>> floppies was very important. That no longer applies.
> You either 1) have no need for "good management of multiple concurrent
> floppies" and can tolerate complex procedures or 2) you are working
> constantly with multiple concurrent floppies and thus NEED "good
> management of multiple concurrent floppies".
Exactly. Nobody has given me a convincing reason why we need seamless
support for multiple concurrently-mounted floppies.
> If first case mount/umount should be enough, in second case you need
> proper solution to problem, not just something that "works
> sometimes". "Good enough" can be enough for Microsoft but it's NOT
> enough for Linus. Solution MUST be bullet-proof
This is where you are being completely inconsistent. mount/umount is
not bullet-proof for your first case (one removable media at a time)
either. So far your argument seems to be that it's OK to lose data as
long as you only lose it on one disk at once. mount/umount is _not_
good enough for single floppies. We can make it good enough without the
overkill of something like Sun's vold.
>> But I don't. A removed floppy is _gone_.
> So you data on floppy with corruped filesystem is gone as well. If you
> do not need that data then why was floppy needed in first place ?
Sheesh. If the user wanted the data saved to the disk, then why did
they remove the disk while it was being written?
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:31 EST