Re: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature

[Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 04:10:26AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I still disagree with this whole patch.  

Same here - if you want a timeout, what stops you from implementing it in a
userspace process?  If your concern is that the process might die without
thawing the filesystem, take a look at the userspace LVM/multipath code for
ideas - lock into memory, disable OOM killer, run from ramdisk etc.
In practice, those techniques seem to be good enough.

> call can hang and this would be theoretically useful is when the
> filesystem is already frozen by someone else, but this should be fixed
> by refusing to do the second freeze, as suggested in my comment to patch
> 1.

Similarly if a device-mapper device is involved, how should the following
sequence behave - A, B or C?

1. dmsetup suspend (freezes)
2. FIFREEZE
3. FITHAW
4. dmsetup resume (thaws)

A:
  1 succeeds, freezes
  2 succeeds, remains frozen
  3 succeeds, remains frozen
  4 succeeds, thaws

B:
  1 succeeds, freezes
  2 fails, remains frozen
  3 shouldn't be called because 2 failed but if it is: succeeds, thaws
  4 succeeds (already thawed, but still does the device-mapper parts)

C:
  1 succeeds, freezes
  2 fails, remains frozen
  3 fails (because device-mapper owns the freeze/thaw), remains frozen 
  4 succeeds, thaws

Alasdair
-- 
agk@redhat.com