On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Enrico Weigelt <weig...@metux.de> wrote: >> To me, inodes are an implementation detail that shouldn't be exposed. > > Well, they're an fundamental concept which sometimes *IS* significant > to the applications. It's very different from systems where each > file has exactly one name (eg. DOS/Windows) or where there're just > filesnames that point to opaque stream objects that can be virtually > anything (eg. Plan9).
Sometimes, indeed. This number of times should be as low as possible. >> > 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. > > Why not designing an new (overlay'ing) filesystem for that ? Increased complexity, lower performance, little benefit. 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/aanlktinq1aucfw2fkjiqwz=y2k4hoor87zbhfq8nb...@mail.gmail.com
