On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Olaf van der Spek wrote: >> Ah, hehe. BTW, care to respond to the mail I send to you? > > There is nothing more I can add to this thread. You want O_ATOMIC. It
That's a shame. I thought I provided pretty concrete answers. > cannot be implemented for all use cases of the POSIX API, so it will not > be implemented by the kernel. That's all there is to it, AFAIK. > > You could ask for a new (non-POSIX?) API that does not ask of a > POSIX-like filesystem something it cannot provide (i.e. don't ask for What's the definition of a POSIX-like FS? > something that requires inode->path reverse mappings). You could ask > for syscalls to copy inodes, etc. You could ask for whatever is needed To me, inodes are an implementation detail that shouldn't be exposed. > to do a (open+write+close) that is atomic if the target already exists. > Maybe one of those has a better chance than O_ATOMIC. > > It is up to you and the fs developers to find some common ground. The FS devs are happy with all the regressions of the workaround, so they're unlikely to do anything. Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikw9372od-eufevczv8dtxorbagslq3mc...@mail.gmail.com
