On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> wrote: > 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 > points. A userspace lib is fine with me. In fact, I've been asking for it multiple times. Result: no response. 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/aanlktikmkh=bxzwybhqdn_geog=qkkbs-efkxgex3...@mail.gmail.com
