On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:50:03PM +0200, Jörn Engel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >
> > But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
> > filesystem ;-)
>
> How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not
On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:21:11 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
>
> > +#define LOGFS_BUG(sb) do { \
> > + struct super_block *__sb = sb; \
> > + logfs_crash_dump(__sb); \
> > + BUG(); \
> > +} while(0)
>
> Note that BUG() can be a no-op so
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Jörn Engel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
> > > > the name than either of its predecessors
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:50:03PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >
> > But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
> > filesystem ;-)
>
> How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not evil. ;)
>
>
On 5/16/07, Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that the filesystem is still 'experimental', I'd concentrate on
getting it stable before worrying about immutable and xattrs unless
they are easy.
We will run into trouble if the on-disk format is not flexible enough
to accommodate
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> But it includes an MTD header file.
>
> Can this code be tested by people who don't have MTD hardware? We used to
> ahve a fake-mtd-on-a-blockdev thing, whcih was in a state of some
> disrepair. Maybe it got repaired. Or removed. I
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
> filesystem ;-)
How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not evil. ;)
Grouping four or more consonants to name anything will cause similar
expressions
Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Please don't forget the immutable bit. ("man lsattr")
> Having both, BSD-style, would be even better.
> The immutable bit is important for working around
> software bugs and "features" that damage files.
>
> I also can't find xattr support.
Imho,
Given that the
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
> > > the name than either of its predecessors :)
> >
> > Did you ever see akpm's
On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:37:36 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
> There are rather a lot of of FIXME comments, including scary stuff like
>
> > + /*
> > + * FIXME: this cannot be right but it does "fix" a bug of i_count
> > + * dropping too low. Needs more thought.
> > + */
> > +
Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
> > the name than either of its predecessors :)
>
> Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce
> "JFFS2"? ;)
JFFS3
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
> the name than either of its predecessors :)
Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce
"JFFS2"? ;)
Jörn
--
Fancy algorithms are
On Wed, 16 May 2007 07:22:54 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> On hard disks, yes, but as you suggested, there are lots of other flash
> devices interfaced as block devices. CompactFlash comes to mind, USB
> keys too. And on these ones, the most important is to reduce the number
> of writes and to
Hi Joern,
> +#define LOGFS_BUG(sb) do { \
> + struct super_block *__sb = sb; \
> + logfs_crash_dump(__sb); \
> + BUG(); \
> +} while(0)
Note that BUG() can be a no-op so dumping something on disk might not make
sense there. This seems
Hi Joern,
+#define LOGFS_BUG(sb) do { \
+ struct super_block *__sb = sb; \
+ logfs_crash_dump(__sb); \
+ BUG(); \
+} while(0)
Note that BUG() can be a no-op so dumping something on disk might not make
sense there. This seems useful,
On Wed, 16 May 2007 07:22:54 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On hard disks, yes, but as you suggested, there are lots of other flash
devices interfaced as block devices. CompactFlash comes to mind, USB
keys too. And on these ones, the most important is to reduce the number
of writes and to
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
the name than either of its predecessors :)
Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce
JFFS2? ;)
Jörn
--
Fancy algorithms are slow
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
the name than either of its predecessors :)
Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce
JFFS2? ;)
JFFS3 is a
On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:37:36 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
There are rather a lot of of FIXME comments, including scary stuff like
+ /*
+ * FIXME: this cannot be right but it does fix a bug of i_count
+ * dropping too low. Needs more thought.
+ */
+
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
the name than either of its predecessors :)
Did you ever see akpm's facial
Albert Cahalan wrote:
Please don't forget the immutable bit. (man lsattr)
Having both, BSD-style, would be even better.
The immutable bit is important for working around
software bugs and features that damage files.
I also can't find xattr support.
Imho,
Given that the filesystem is still
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
filesystem ;-)
How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not evil. ;)
Grouping four or more consonants to name anything will cause similar
expressions on
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
But it includes an MTD header file.
Can this code be tested by people who don't have MTD hardware? We used to
ahve a fake-mtd-on-a-blockdev thing, whcih was in a state of some
disrepair. Maybe it got repaired. Or removed. I can't
On 5/16/07, Jamie Lokier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that the filesystem is still 'experimental', I'd concentrate on
getting it stable before worrying about immutable and xattrs unless
they are easy.
We will run into trouble if the on-disk format is not flexible enough
to accommodate xattrs
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:50:03PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
filesystem ;-)
How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not evil. ;)
Grouping four
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
the name than either of its predecessors :)
Did
On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:21:11 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
+#define LOGFS_BUG(sb) do { \
+ struct super_block *__sb = sb; \
+ logfs_crash_dump(__sb); \
+ BUG(); \
+} while(0)
Note that BUG() can be a no-op so dumping something
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:50:03PM +0200, Jörn Engel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
filesystem ;-)
How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not evil. ;)
On 5/16/07, Jörn Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+/* FIXME: all this mess should get replaced by using the page cache */
+static void fixup_from_wbuf(struct super_block *sb, struct logfs_area
*area,
+ void *read, u64 ofs, size_t readlen)
+{
Indeed. And I think you're
On 5/16/07, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgot to add (see below). Seems logfs_segment_read would be simpler
too if you fixed this.
Blah. Just to be clear: I forgot to add a (see below) text in the
original review comment.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:25:48 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Is LogFS really slower than JFFS2 in practice?
Not sure. I ran a benchmark before adding compression support in QEMU
with a lightning-fast device. So the results should differ quite a bit
from practice.
On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:29:22 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:50:03PM +0200, Jörn Engel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
filesystem ;-)
On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:08:15 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 5/16/07, Jamie Lokier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that the filesystem is still 'experimental', I'd concentrate on
getting it stable before worrying about immutable and xattrs unless
they are easy.
We will run into trouble if the
On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:36:44 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 5/16/07, Jörn Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More trouble?
Forgot to add (see below). Seems logfs_segment_read would be simpler
too if you fixed this.
Would it? I think that code would still be needed, although possibly in
a
On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:41:10 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Jörn On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Jörn How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not
evil. ;)
Nope, they're not. I just think that LogFS isn't descriptive enough,
or more accurately, is the
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 15:53 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
My experience is that no matter which name I pick, people will
complain
anyway. Previous suggestions included:
jffs3
jefs
engelfs
poofs
crapfs
sweetfs
cutefs
dynamic journaling fs - djofs
tfsfkal - the file system formerly known
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:04 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 15:53 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
My experience is that no matter which name I pick, people will
complain
anyway. Previous suggestions included:
jffs3
jefs
engelfs
poofs
crapfs
sweetfs
cutefs
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 03:53:19PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote:
Imo they all suck. LogFS also sucks, but it allows me to make a stupid
joke and keep my logfs.org domain.
Well if stupid jokes are a goer there's always gordonfs. :)
*hides*
--
To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the
On 5/16/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 15:53 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
My experience is that no matter which name I pick, people will
complain
anyway. Previous suggestions included:
jffs3
jefs
engelfs
poofs
crapfs
sweetfs
cutefs
dynamic journaling
On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:07:18 +0800 David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's strange and a bit regrettable that an fs would have dependency on MTD,
really.
Why? Other file systems has dependencies on BLOCK or on NET. It seems
entirely normal to me.
Reduced testability, mainly. Also
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 08:34 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Reduced testability, mainly. Also potentially reduced usefulness.
CONFIG_MTD has never been a barrier to testability. JFFS2 depends on MTD
and had _most_ of its early testing and development done on the 'fake'
mtdram device.
Utility is a
On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:49:55 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
Utility is a factor of the underlying design -- a filesystem designed
for flash really isn't suited to block devices.
I can think of at least three examples where LogFS would indeed make
sense on block devices.
Jörn
--
Happiness
Hi!
In kernel fsck
--- /dev/null 2007-04-18 05:32:26.652341749 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.21logfs/fs/logfs/progs/fsck.c 2007-05-15 00:54:22.0
+0200
@@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
+/*
+ * fs/logfs/prog/fsck.c - filesystem check
+ *
+ * As should be obvious for Linux kernel code, license
On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:17:18 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
In kernel fsck
--- /dev/null 2007-04-18 05:32:26.652341749 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.21logfs/fs/logfs/progs/fsck.c 2007-05-15 00:54:22.0
+0200
@@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
+/*
+ * fs/logfs/prog/fsck.c- filesystem check
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 02:06:31AM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:37:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It's strange and a bit regrettable that an fs would have dependency on MTD,
> > really.
>
> It is and changing this wouldn't be too hard. All device access goes
> through
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:19 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >
> > I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
> > is that I hate the name. To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
> > logging purposes, not for Flash
There are rather a lot of of FIXME comments, including scary stuff like
> +/*
> + * FIXME: this cannot be right but it does "fix" a bug of i_count
> + * dropping too low. Needs more thought.
> + */
> +atomic_inc(_dentry->d_inode->i_count);
and
> +int
On Wed, 16 May 2007 02:06:31 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> > > +
> > > + if (dest) {
> > > + /* symlink */
> > > + ret = logfs_inode_write(inode, dest, destlen, 0);
> > > + } else {
> > > + /* creat/mkdir/mknod */
> > > + ret = __logfs_write_inode(inode);
> > > + }
>
On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:26:17 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>
> Please don't forget the immutable bit. ("man lsattr")
> Having both, BSD-style, would be even better.
> The immutable bit is important for working around
> software bugs and "features" that damage files.
>
> I also can't find xattr
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:37:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +
> > +config LOGFS_FSCK
> > + bool "Run LogFS fsck at mount time"
> > + depends on LOGFS
> > + help
> > + Run a full filesystem check on every mount. If any errors are
> > + found, mounting the filesystem will fail. This
Please don't forget the immutable bit. ("man lsattr")
Having both, BSD-style, would be even better.
The immutable bit is important for working around
software bugs and "features" that damage files.
I also can't find xattr support.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:19:20 +0200
J__rn Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Add LogFS, a scalable flash filesystem.
>
> ...
>
>
> +config LOGFS
> + tristate "Log Filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> + depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> + select ZLIB_INFLATE
> + select ZLIB_DEFLATE
> + help
>
On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
> is that I hate the name. To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
> logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to
> be taken into account.
On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:37:25 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > [ I have put everyone that gave comments to the last patch on Cc:. Hope
> > that doesn't offend anyone. ]
> >
> >
> > Add LogFS, a scalable flash filesystem.
>
> Have you
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> [ I have put everyone that gave comments to the last patch on Cc:. Hope
> that doesn't offend anyone. ]
>
>
> Add LogFS, a scalable flash filesystem.
Have you run sparse on this code?
I do not recall if you have written something
Most of my homework is done. There are six items left plus another five
I believe should not get changed.
Changed:
o Kconfig description updated
o Spaces converted to tabs in Makefile
o Sorted/seperated #includes
o structures are __packed instead of packed, #define removed
o removed TRACE()
o
Most of my homework is done. There are six items left plus another five
I believe should not get changed.
Changed:
o Kconfig description updated
o Spaces converted to tabs in Makefile
o Sorted/seperated #includes
o structures are __packed instead of packed, #define removed
o removed TRACE()
o
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
[ I have put everyone that gave comments to the last patch on Cc:. Hope
that doesn't offend anyone. ]
Add LogFS, a scalable flash filesystem.
Have you run sparse on this code?
I do not recall if you have written something about
On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:37:25 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
[ I have put everyone that gave comments to the last patch on Cc:. Hope
that doesn't offend anyone. ]
Add LogFS, a scalable flash filesystem.
Have you run sparse on
On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
is that I hate the name. To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to
be taken into account.
Yeah,
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:19:20 +0200
J__rn Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add LogFS, a scalable flash filesystem.
...
+config LOGFS
+ tristate Log Filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL)
+ depends on EXPERIMENTAL
+ select ZLIB_INFLATE
+ select ZLIB_DEFLATE
+ help
+ Flash
Please don't forget the immutable bit. (man lsattr)
Having both, BSD-style, would be even better.
The immutable bit is important for working around
software bugs and features that damage files.
I also can't find xattr support.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:37:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
+
+config LOGFS_FSCK
+ bool Run LogFS fsck at mount time
+ depends on LOGFS
+ help
+ Run a full filesystem check on every mount. If any errors are
+ found, mounting the filesystem will fail. This is a debug
On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:26:17 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
Please don't forget the immutable bit. (man lsattr)
Having both, BSD-style, would be even better.
The immutable bit is important for working around
software bugs and features that damage files.
I also can't find xattr support.
Not
On Wed, 16 May 2007 02:06:31 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
+
+ if (dest) {
+ /* symlink */
+ ret = logfs_inode_write(inode, dest, destlen, 0);
+ } else {
+ /* creat/mkdir/mknod */
+ ret = __logfs_write_inode(inode);
+ }
+ super-s_victim_ino =
There are rather a lot of of FIXME comments, including scary stuff like
+/*
+ * FIXME: this cannot be right but it does fix a bug of i_count
+ * dropping too low. Needs more thought.
+ */
+atomic_inc(old_dentry-d_inode-i_count);
and
+int
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:19 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
is that I hate the name. To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 02:06:31AM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:37:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
It's strange and a bit regrettable that an fs would have dependency on MTD,
really.
It is and changing this wouldn't be too hard. All device access goes
through five
101 - 168 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
