On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:08:59PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >> Btw, is there any good reason to keep ->atomic_open and ->atomic_create > >> separate? It seems like the instances in general share code anyway. > > > > ->atomic_open is called before lookup, ->atomic_create after lookup. > > > > How would we differentiate between the two if they were common? We > > could have a filesystem flag, but for example CEPH does weird things > > like using ->atomic_open for !O_CREAT and ->atomic_create for O_CREAT. > > Or let the filesystem do the lookup in ->atomic_open if it wants (and > pass the need_lookup flag to the filesystem). That sounds like a much better approch. And as mentioned by Sarge a lot of the odd fs behaviour currently probably is because the current atomic open interface is so awkward that no one really understands it. We'll probably be able to clean up a lot of that, but I'd suggest to not try to cram everything into the initial atomic open support. -- 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
