From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:31:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:30:55 -0400 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:32019 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:30:47 -0400 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Message-ID: <3B01D82B.8CAE38B5@transmeta.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:30:19 -0700 Organization: Transmeta Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, sv, no, da, es, fr, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Altaparmakov CC: "Albert D. Cahalan" , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Getting FS access events In-Reply-To: <200105152231.f4FMVSC246046@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <5.1.0.14.2.20010516020702.00acce40@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > And how are you thinking of this working "without introducing new > interfaces" if the caches are indeed incoherent? Please correct me if I > understand wrong, but when two caches are incoherent, I thought it means > that the above _would_ screw up unless protected by exclusive write locking > as I suggested in my previous post with the side effect that you can't > write the boot block without unmounting the filesystem or modifying some > interface somewhere. > Not if direct device acess and the superblock exist in the same mapping space, OR an explicit interface to write the boot block is created. -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt