Message-ID: <49CFD72A.5010107@davidnewall.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:46:42 +1030
From: David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
CC: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Zero length files - an alternative approach?
References: <87bprka9sg.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> <yw1xab744lqi.fsf@thrashbarg.mansr.com> <49CF636A.3030400@ursus.ath.cx> <yw1x1vsg4jio.fsf@thrashbarg.mansr.com> <20090329134901.GB13737@elf.ucw.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20090329134901.GB13737@elf.ucw.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 881
Lines: 18

Pavel Machek wrote:
> fsync() is easy. But some people _want_ to have either newdata _or_
> olddata, but don't care which one, and would prefer to avoid
> fsync. That's where replace() should help...

Most people, I wager, care more about their code being portable than
they do about leaping through a Linux-specific hoop.  They're not going
to use replace; not ever; that's what link/unlink is for.

If you think it's reasonable to modify every instance in applications
where a sudden crash would cause data loss, why not make a mount-time
flag that does all of that in FS; and for the other 99% of users, it
doesn't, but runs faster?
--
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/