Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: >> This may treat non-zero multiple of 4GiB as "not racy", but has >> anybody double checked the concern Réne brought up earlier that a >> 4GiB file that was added and then got rewritten to 2GiB within the >> same second would suddenly start getting treated as not racy? > This is the pre-existing problem, that ~1in 2^31 size changes might not > get noticed for size change. The 0 byte / 4GiB change is an identical > issue, as is changing from 3 bytes to 4GiB+3 bytes, etc., so that's no > worse than before (well maybe twice as 'unlikely'). OK, it added one more case to 2^32-1 existing cases, I guess. >> The patch (the firnal version of it anyway) needs to be accompanied >> by a handful of test additions to tickle corner cases like that. > They'd be protected by the EXPENSIVE prerequisite I would assume. Oh, absolutely. Thanks for spelling that out.
