Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:04:17 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>, walt <wa1ter@myrealbox.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air
Message-ID: <20031111150417.GF1649@x30.random>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311102316330.980-100000@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com> <3FB091C0.9050009@cyberone.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FB091C0.9050009@cyberone.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1311
Lines: 38

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 06:37:36PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> 
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, walt wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>The best way to fix this isn't to add locking to rsync, but to add two
> >>>files inside or outside the tree, each one is a sequence number, so you
> >>>fetch file1 first, then you rsync and you fetch file2, then you compare
> >>>them. If they're the same, your rsync copy is coherent. It's the same
> >>>locking we introduced with vgettimeofday...
> >>>
> >>How is this different from writing one file named LOCK while updating
> >>the tree?
> >>
> >
> >This is even simpler I believe. If you happen to fetch it, you restart the 
> >rsync. Peter ?
> >(maybe the name LOCK should be replaced by something more "uniq")
> >
> >
> 
> What happens if the the tree is updated while the client is fetching it?

the usual problem, and the reason we need a sequence number (increased
before and after the repo update). A file lock not.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/