On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Christian Stroetmann <stroetmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On the 29.12.2010 13:42, Olaf van der Spek wrote: >>>> Not really, unfortunately. Haven't seen a single link to code that >>>> shows how to do it properly. > > No, not this way. You were and still are asked for delivering the code. > Don't pervert the threat of the discussion. I'm talking about the code for temp file, fsync, rename. Not about O_ATOMIC code. >> Each app makes it's own decision about what API to use. Supporting >> atomic stuff doesn't change the behaviour of existing apps. > > Wrong, we are talking here in the first place about general atomic FS > operations. And to guarantee atomicity you have to change general FS > functions in such a way that in the end all other applications are affected, Why's that? > or otherwise you have to implement an own (larger part of an) FS. > At this point there is no discussion anymore without code from you, because > this subject is as well discussed to the maximum in information > processing/informatics/computer science. This subject? Exactly what subject? >> Maybe I should ask devs of some large apps on their take of this issue. > > Nonsense, because they are already using: > a) the functions available by an FS, Of course. Does that mean the situation can't be improved for them? > b) the functions available by a DBMS, or > c) a propritary special solution based on the available functions of the OS > and additional functionality that they develope and maintain themselves > for their comparable use cases since decades due to the cost vs. benefit > ratio. Olaf -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
