Re: Safe File Update (atomic)
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<hmh@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
Reply to: