Hello,
Neil Brown wrote:
1/ A BIO_RW_BARRIER request should never fail with -EOPNOTSUP.
This is certainly a very attractive position - it makes the interface
cleaner and makes life easier for filesystems and other clients of
the block interface.
Currently filesystems handle -EOPNOTSUP
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:30:32AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
1/ A BIO_RW_BARRIER request should never fail with -EOPNOTSUP.
The device-mapper position has always been that we require
a zero-length BIO_RW_BARRIER
(i.e. containing no data to read or write - or emulated, possibly
2007/5/27, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On May 27, 2007, at 03:25:27, Toshiharu Harada wrote:
2007/5/27, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How is that argument not trivially circular? Foo has an assumption
that foo-property is always properly defined and maintained. That
could be said
Neil Brown writes:
[...]
Thus the general sequence might be:
a/ issue all preceding writes.
b/ issue the commit write with BIO_RW_BARRIER
c/ wait for the commit to complete.
If it was successful - done.
If it failed other than with EOPNOTSUPP, abort
As for unlink... How do you deal with having that thing
mounted, mounting something _under_ it (so that vfsmount would be kept
busy) and then unlinking that sucker?
Yeah, that's a good point. Current patch doesn't deal with that.
Simplest solution could be to disallow submounting
(dunny why you explicitly dropped me off the cc/to list when replying to
my email, hence I missed it for 3 days)
On Fri, May 25 2007, Phillip Susi wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
A barrier write will include a flush, but it may also use the FUA bit to
ensure data is on platter. So the only situation
Hi!
That's a circular argument, and a fairly trivial one
at that. If you
can't properly manage your labels, then how do you
expect any
security at all?
Unfortunately, it's not at all as simple as all that.
Toshiharu is quite correct that it isn't always easy
to actually implement.
On May 28, 2007, at 06:41:11, Toshiharu Harada wrote:
2007/5/27, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you can't properly manage your labels, then how do you expect
any security at all?
Please read my message again. I didn't say, This can never be
achieved. I said, This can not be easily
On May 28, 2007, at 16:38:38, Pavel Machek wrote:
Kyle Moffett wrote:
I am of the opinion that adding a name parameter to the file/
directory create actions would be useful. For example, with such
support you could actually specify a type-transition rule
conditional on a specific name or
