Re: [RFC] Re: broken userland ABI in configfs binary attributes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 27/08/2019 20:27, Al Viro wrote:
<>
> If you want to express something like "data packet formed; now you can commit
> it and tell me if there'd been any errors", use something explicit.  close()
> simply isn't suitable for that.  writev() for datagram-like semantics might
> be; fsync() or fdatasync() could serve for "commit now".
> 

Yes! I change my mind you are right. close() should stay with void semantics.
I always thought the IO error reporting on close was a bad POSIX decision and
fsync should be the final resting bed, and if you do not call fsync then you
don't care about the error.

Sigh, looks like the error was for ever ignored from day one. Maybe the Kernel
guys felt the errors were important. But application users of configfs, did any
actually care and check? Is there really a regression here? maybe the current imp
needs to just be documented.
(Or the more blasphemous, change the ABI and force people to call fsync or something)

I feel the frustration too
Boaz



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux