> > > > So instead of saying "A filesystem that accepts this flag will > > guaranty, that old inode data will not be exposed in the new linked > > name." It's much clearer to state this in the affirmative: > > > > A filesystem which accepts this flag will guarantee that if > > the new pathname exists after a crash, all of the data written > > to the file at the time of the linkat(2) call will be visible. > > > > Sounds good to me. I will take a swing at another patch. > So I am down to single flag documented with 3 tweets ;-) What do you think of: "AT_ATOMIC_DATA (since Linux 5.x) A filesystem which accepts this flag will guarantee that if the linked file name exists after a system crash, then all of the data written to the file and all of the file's metadata at the time of the linkat(2) call will be visible. The way to achieve this guarantee on old kernels is to call fsync (2) before linking the file, but doing so will also results in flushing of volatile disk caches. A filesystem which accepts this flag does NOT guarantee that any of the file hardlinks will exist after a system crash, nor that the last observed value of st_nlink (see stat (2)) will persist." Thanks, Amir.
