From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [213.170.72.194] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CESyA-00074h-Ta for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:33:42 -0400 Message-ID: <41615109.7070303@yandex.ru> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:32:57 +0400 From: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse References: <416122A1.4060302@oktetlabs.ru> <1096885344.30942.559.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <416127B7.3070505@yandex.ru> <1096893242.22034.5.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <41614B2F.8060901@yandex.ru> <1096895892.30942.614.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1096895892.30942.614.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: inode checkpoints List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 17:07 +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote: > >>FIFOs, blk/chr dvice files *always have only one valid node at a time* >>(right?). Thus, when building the inode cache, we may only read the node >>with the highest version (which is found by scanning the correspondent >>node_ref list) and read *only* this node. If it is OK (CRC is right), no >>need to read more. If CRC is bad, read the older one... Checkpoints >>aren't needed, this is *another* improvement... >> >>How about this scheme? > > > Seems sane. > So, this isn't the subject of my improvement. But it is nice we discussed this too - somebody could implement this. :-) -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.