Re: Safe File Update (atomic)
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> Olaf, O_ATOMIC is "difficult" in the kernel sense and in the long run. It
> is an API that is too hard to implement in a sane way, with too many
> boundary conditions.
> OTOH, you don't need O_ATOMIC. You need a way for easy application access
> to a saner/simpler way to deal with files that require atomic replacement.
> Time to switch to a plan B that can achieve it. Do not lose track of your
> final goal, and stop wasting time with O_ATOMIC (and aggravating fs
> developers, which can only hurt your goal in the end).
Maybe I wasn't clear, in that case I'm sorry. To me, O_ATOMIC is
mostly about the userspace API. The implementation isn't (that)
important, so you're right.
> Maybe there are ways to actually let the kernel detect usage patterns and do
> the right thing, but nobody found any that is complete (and the incomplete
> ones are implemented in ext3 and ext4 AFAIK).
> If an userspace library is built to do all the dances required using only
> POSIX APIs (you can use extensions where they are available to enhance
> performance) you will have an EXACT list of boundary conditions and choke
A userspace lib is fine with me. In fact, I've been asking for it
multiple times. Result: no response.