On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote: > I have more up to date versions of these patches around here. > > The problem with them is that fundamentally, the WAPBL implementation > as it is assumes that it may infinitely steal > buffers from the buffer cache and hold onto them indefinitely - and it > assumes it can always get buffers from it. While the patch as it sits > may "work" in the "happy case" on many people's machines, as it sits > today it is dangerous and can lock up your machine and corrupt things > in low memory situations.
so basically the situation is like with the current softdep which is also dangerous in slow-write-drive low-memory situation and yet it's in tree. > Basically in order to progres WAPBL (renamed "FFS Journalling" here) > needs to have a mechanism added to allow > it be told "no it can't have a buffer" and let it deal with it > correctly. The first part is done, the latter part is complex. the question is if it's better to hold those patches in your tree or push them to the tree so others may try their luck with them. Well you are the judge here, is WAPBL already on softdep quality level? Thanks!
