On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 13:47:38 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > On 08/14/2016 05:03 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:52:24 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > >> @@ -583,6 +589,8 @@ class vfs(abstractvfs): > >> self._trustnlink = nlink > 1 or util.checknlink(f) > >> if nlink > 1 or not self._trustnlink: > >> util.rename(util.mktempcopy(f), f) > >> + if self._ward is not None: > >> + self._ward(f, mode) > >> fp = util.posixfile(f, mode) > > > > Do you have an idea to extend this to the other operations and open of > > atomictemp files? I doubt it wouldn't be as simple as a callback function. > > Simple callback should do for the other operation, as they are also > performed through vfs.
Something like ward('open', f, mode), ward('unlink', f), etc., or wardopen(), wardunlink(), etc. ? > For atomictmp, we probably want to channel their usage through as vfs to > be able to cover them. I mean atomictemp=True is handled before calling ward(). And I think atomic operation should be allowed without taking a lock, but ward() should be called no matter if operation is atomic or not. _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel