From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m68DbMDl003746 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:37:22 -0700 Received: from spitz.ucw.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 001A02C8987 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spitz.ucw.cz (gprs189-60.eurotel.cz [160.218.189.60]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vyHGEJIEo7eq4HgI for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:07:31 +0200 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature Message-ID: <20080707110730.GG5643@ucw.cz> References: <20080630212450t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> <20080701081026.GB16691@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080701081026.GB16691@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Takashi Sato , akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , axboe@kernel.dk, mtk.manpages@googlemail.com Hi! > I still disagree with this whole patch. There is not reason to let > the freeze request timeout - an auto-unfreezing will only confuse the > hell out of the caller. The only reason where the current XFS freeze > call can hang and this would be theoretically useful is when the What happens when someone dirties so much data that vm swaps out whatever process that frozen the filesystem? I though that was why the timeout was there... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html