Re: [PATCH] hfsplus: add journal replay

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Feb 23, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Sergei Antonov wrote:

> Add journal replay functionality. If filesystem is mounted for read-write and
> a non-empty journal is found, the replay action will be done. The original
> behaviour of switching to read-only mode in presense of journal by default is
> retained since the driver does not support journaled metadata modification
> anyway. After an attempt to replay has been done, the mount procedure repeats
> loading volume header to get its updated state. Having performed journal replay
> we do not run a risk of stumbling on inconsistency when working with the volume,
> so this functionality adds stability, while not changing any existing behaviour.
> Mount logic in super.c is changed as conservatively as possible.
> 
> The replay code checks the integrity of the whole journal before actually
> replaying sectors. If any error (e.g. checksum mismatch, invalid/misaligned
> offsets) is detected, the volume will remain unchanged and the journal will not
> be cleared.
> 
> The code supports checksums for replay data in addition to checksums for header
> and lists. Checksums for data is a relatively modern feature present on volumes
> modified by modern OS X versions.
> 
> Tested with:
> drives with 512 and 4K sector sizes
> default (8 MB) and custom (1 MB, 500 MB) journal sizes
> big-endian (PowerPC) and little-endian (Intel) journal byte sexes
> 
> Advantages over a previously presented
>   "[PATCH v3 00/15] hfsplus: introduce journal replay functionality"
>   by a different author:
> support for big-endian journal
> no redundant stuff like journal initialization
> less intrusive changes
> shorter, easier to review

I have corrected my code for big-endian support and I am ready to submit it during next several days.
I have really bad feelings about your patch because it makes sense to announce your intentions to make
such implementation if you know about efforts from another party in this direction. For me it is really
dishonest way because I spent my time for this implementation.

I disagree with such way of submitting patch. Because it is likewise cheating, form my point of view.

With the best regards,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux