russell muetzelfeldt wrote:
On 19/08/2008, at 9:37 AM, Tom Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:38 -0700, Jeff Rogers wrote:
While I'd agree this is a bug in fastpath, the real problem is that
fastpath is being used at all in this case.
I don't think it is a bug in fastpath.
fastpath is making assumptions about what means something is the "same
file", and those assumptions are not consistent with unix filesystem
semantics - how is this not a bug?
It's not a bug because no one ever said that it *was* strictly following
unix filesystem semantics, which isn't even a single thing (ufs is
slightly different than nfs, is slightly different than ext2 -noatime,
is slightly different than afs, etc.) It is following a particular
definition: if the file still exists and has the same
dev/inode/mtime/size as it did when you last checked, then it is the
same file. This of it as a if-modified-since or if-none-match
conditional GET.
It is a bug in that it's not what you expect. However in that case, the
location of the bug is subject to debate.
-J
sure, the original use case that triggered this seems non-optimal, and
could be done in other ways that don't trigger the bug, but that doesn't
mean fastpath is behaving correctly...
Russell
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the
Subject: field of your email blank.
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject:
field of your email blank.
