Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:03:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:03:01 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:56836 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:02:46 -0400 Subject: Re: ext3-2.4-0.9.4 To: patl@cag.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 20:03:37 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk In-Reply-To: from "Patrick J. LoPresti" at Jul 28, 2001 12:46:51 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing > How does this scheme "risk delivering mail to the wrong person > instead"? With the fsync it looks ok for most cases. It depends on the actions of a rename touching only one disk block - which of course it doesn't do. Even so with the fsync on a sane fs I cant see that problem occuring > If you have metadata journalling, all you need for this algorithm to > work is to have rename() write to the journal before returning. Is > this true for any of the current journalling file systems on Linux? Ext3 I believe so, Reiserfs I would assume so but Hans can answer definitively - 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/