Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?

Josef Sipek
2006-05-30T13:13:09Z

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:44:57PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Josef Sipek wrote:
> >On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:34:09PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >...
> >
> >>Can we get rid of the whole thing, confusing memory barriers and all?
> >>Nobody uses anything but the default sync_page
> >
> >
> >I feel like I must say this: there are some file systems that live
> >outside the kernel (at least for now) that do _NOT_ use the default
> >sync_page. All the stackable file systems that are based on FiST [1],
> >such as Unionfs [2] and eCryptfs (currently in -mm) [3] (respective
> >authors CC'd). As an example, Unionfs must decide which lower file
> >system page to sync (since it may have several to chose from).
>
> OK, noted. Thanks. Luckily for them it looks like sync_page might
> stay for other reasons (eg. raid) ;)
>
> Any good reasons they are not in the tree?

eCryptfs got recently into -mm, my guess would be that Mike Halcrow will
try to get it into vanilla in the coming months.

Unionfs is into process of getting ready for a review by the fs-devel &
linux-kernel crowd.

Josef "Jeff" Sipek.