Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:20:22 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To:        Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: magic sysrq keys functionality
Message-ID:  <200407262220.i6QMKMT0098911@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20040726155712.R32601@pooker.samsco.org>
References:  <1090718450.2020.4.camel@illusion.com> <200407251112.46183.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20040726175219.GA96815@green.homeunix.org> <m3hdrulbfk.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <20040726155712.R32601@pooker.samsco.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:06:33 -0600 (MDT), Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.ORG> said:

> This works right now because we assume that disks will commit blocks
> in order, and that assumption generally hasn't been broken.

I don't think soft updates cares about what order blocks are
committed, because it will not in general consider a dependency
resolved until it is notified that the buffer has been written.  What
we do assume is that the disk (or driver) doesn't lie to us and claim
that a block was written when it really wasn't.

-GAWollman



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407262220.i6QMKMT0098911>