From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264387AbTLVGdw (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:33:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264389AbTLVGdv (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:33:51 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:33930 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264387AbTLVGdm (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:33:42 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:33:32 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ben Slusky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jariruusu@users.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop.c patches, take two Message-Id: <20031221223332.5c625592.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20031221195534.GA4721@fukurou.paranoiacs.org> References: <20031030134137.GD12147@fukurou.paranoiacs.org> <3FA15506.B9B76A5D@users.sourceforge.net> <20031030133000.6a04febf.akpm@osdl.org> <20031031005246.GE12147@fukurou.paranoiacs.org> <20031031015500.44a94f88.akpm@osdl.org> <20031101002650.GA7397@fukurou.paranoiacs.org> <20031102204624.GA5740@fukurou.paranoiacs.org> <20031221195534.GA4721@fukurou.paranoiacs.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 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 Ben Slusky wrote: > > Well, it appears that neither my loop.c patches nor Andrew's were merged > into 2.6.0... I'd request that my patches be merged into mainline, > since Jari Ruusu has pointed out that Andrew's patch (which removes the > separate code path for block-backed loop devices) will break journaling > filesystems on loop devices. Right now, journaling FS's on file-backed > loop devices are kinda iffy (they will work only if the underlying FS is > also journaled, with the correct journal options) but journaling FS's > on block-backed loop devices work perfectly. Andrew's patches would > break this. I'm not sure how important this is? Remember that one of the reasons for dropping the block-backed special case was that it ran like crap under heavy load. It locked up, iirc. Has that been fixed here?