If you want to play in this area, WAPBL would be a far more attractive starting point.
For most purposes, if we got a real journalled filesystem this *could* largely negate the need for softdep in any case. You do need to be careful about the stuff from bitrig/netbsd because there are some differences in the midlayer that can bite you, but if you get very far you can poke me for some help. I have looked at variations of WAPBL before, but haven't dove in due to worrying about other underlying problems that would get in the way. Many of those may now be gone, so if you get very far you can poke me. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Walter Neto <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > Studying more about wapbl, I saw It is a little faster than SU+J and so much > more easy to implement, correct me if I’m wrong, please. > > About a diff with working code, my next would be one with it, but not with > the whole thing working, It was to be homeopathic. > > But now I have doubts whether to continue SU+J implementation or to implement > WAPBL (more easy, cause Pedro had implemented in bitrig) > > Any suggestions? > >> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Bob Beck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I would much rather see something llike wapbl ported than this.. I >> believe there be dragons here. >> >> You're welcome to try, but I anticipate heartbraak ;) >> >> If you're going to try I'd rather see a diff you got *working* rather >> than just the structure definitions for >> something that might never be brought to fruition. >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ted Unangst <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Walter Neto wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here is the first patch to bring Journaling to OpenBSD based on the >>>> McKusick paper: >>>> https://www.bsdcan.org/2010/schedule/attachments/141_suj-slides.pd and >>>> FreeBSD 10 >>>> >>>> This first patch is just for structures and definitions. >>>> >>>> I know is my first patch suggestion and this feature is not usual, but I >>>> am fully focused on making it work, and I hope to receive help from >>>> expert developers. >>> >>> Yikes! >>> >>> Do I understand correctly that you do not currently have anything working? >>> >>> My opinion is that this feature is too complicated and disruptive. My >>> takeaway >>> from the talk was "we got it to work, but it was a lot harder than we >>> thought >>> and probably wouldn't do it again". I think I can safely speak for most of >>> the >>> other openbsd developers that we are kind of scared of any large (or even >>> small!) change to the softdep code. >>> >>> If this is a topic that interests you, I think the NetBSD wapbl is a simpler >>> approach. There is even code in bitrig which can likely be made to work on >>> openbsd. >>> >>> The softdep approach is very interesting, so don't let me stop you from >>> studying it, but if you want something a little more "practical" I think >>> there >>> are better things to do. >>> >
