"A month of sundays ago Rik van Riel wrote:"
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>
> > I assumed that I would need to make several VFS operations atomic
> > or revertable, or simply forbid things like new file allocations or
> > extensions (i.e. the above), depending on what is possible or not.
>
> > No, I don't want ANY FS. Thanks, I know about these, but they're not
> > it. I want support for /any/ FS at all at the VFS level.
>
> You can't. Even if each operation is fully atomic on one node,
> you still don't have synchronisation between the different nodes
> sharing one disk.
Yes, I do have synchronization - locks are/can be shared between both
kernels using a device driver mechanism that I implemented. That is
to say, I can guarantee that atomic operations by each kernel do not
overlap "on the device", and remain locally ordered at least (and
hopefully globally, if I get the time thing right).
It's not that hard - the locks are held on the remote disk by a
"guardian" driver, to which the drivers on both of the kernels
communicate. A fake "scsi adapter", if you prefer.
> You really need filesystem support.
I don't think so. I think you're not convinced either! But
I would really like it if you could put your finger on an
overriding objection.
Peter
-
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 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:17 EST