Re: [PATCH] loop.c patches, take two

[Andrew Morton]

Ben Slusky <sluskyb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well, it appears that neither my loop.c patches nor Andrew's were merged
>  into 2.6.0... I'd request that my patches be merged into mainline,
>  since Jari Ruusu has pointed out that Andrew's patch (which removes the
>  separate code path for block-backed loop devices) will break journaling
>  filesystems on loop devices. Right now, journaling FS's on file-backed
>  loop devices are kinda iffy (they will work only if the underlying FS is
>  also journaled, with the correct journal options) but journaling FS's
>  on block-backed loop devices work perfectly. Andrew's patches would
>  break this.

I'm not sure how important this is?

Remember that one of the reasons for dropping the block-backed special case
was that it ran like crap under heavy load.  It locked up, iirc.  Has that
been fixed here?

-
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/