Re: Safe File Update (atomic)
* Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@gmail.com> schrieb:
> > 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.
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).
> > 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 ?
cu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@metux.de
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: