On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 22:06 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > I'm not saying this kernel bug is likely to hit in practice. It is > > > still a kernel bug. > > > > > > Is the slowdown of lseek worth getting rid of this minor bug? Not > > > sure, probably yes. > > > > I think a slow down is the worse choice. Adding a note to the > > documentation saying that "By the way, on 32bit systems the seek call is > > not atomic for 64bit file offsets, so if you happen to issue two at > > That would be very wrong addition to documentation. If you really > wanted to do something like this, you would probably want to say > something like > > "Doing concurrent seeks on one file is undefined. Kernel may end up > with seeking to some other place." > > Unfortunately, you'd have to get this addition into POSIX standard... Is not treating the point not similar to undefined? And undefined semantics cover pretty much anything, including the current behaviour. FWIW I really think this issue is a non-issue; one cannot expect sane behaviour of unsynchronized usage of a shared resource. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
