Re: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:22:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Actually, I believe requirements are same.
> > > 
> > > 'don't do i/o in dangerous period'.
> > > 
> > > swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That
> > > provides consistent-enough state...
> > 
> > As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do
> > I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync'
> > prevent filesystems from doing I/O.....
> 
> Well, it seems we can handle this on the block layer level, by temporarily
> replacing the elevator with something that will selectively prevent fs I/O
> from reaching the layers below it.
> 
> I talked with Jens about it on a very general level, but it seems doable at
> first sight.

Why would you hack the blok layer when we already have a perfectly fine
facility to archive what you want?  freeze_bdev is there exactly for the
purpose to make the filesystem consistant on disk and then freeze all
I/O.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/