Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02 2002, Joe Thornber wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:40:56AM -0400, Tom Walcott wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Browsing the patch submitted for 2.4 inclusion, I noticed that LVM2
> > > modifies the buffer_head struct. Why does LVM2 require the addition of it's
> > > own private field in the buffer_head? It seems that it should be able to
> > > use the existing b_private field.
> >
> > This is a horrible hack to get around the fact that ext3 uses the
> > b_private field for its own purposes after the buffer_head has been
> > handed to the block layer (it doesn't just use b_private when in the
> > b_end_io function). Is this acceptable behaviour ? Other filesystems
> > do not have similar problems as far as I know.
> >
> > device-mapper uses the b_private field to 'hook' the buffer_heads so
> > it can keep track of in flight ios (essential for implementing
> > suspend/resume correctly). See dm.c:dec_pending()
>
> Your driver is required to properly stack b_private uses, however if
> ext3 (well jbd really) over writes b_private after bh i/o submission I
> would say that it is broken. That breaks more than just device mapper,
> that will break any stacked driver (such as loop, for instance).
It requires that b_private be stable across the lifetime of the buffer.
hmm.
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:10 EST