On Fri, 03 Aug 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Sigh... You need i_sem for fsync(). Moreover, there is no warranty that
> set of objects you sync has _anything_ to path by the time when you start
> syncing the second one. Application has information about the use of
> parts of tree it's interested in. Kernel doesn't. Notice that all this
> wankage was full of "oh, but MTA doesn't care for symlinks", "oh, but MTA
> doesn't deal with parents renamed", ad nausea. You know what it means?
I know a few MTAs, but none of them use symlinks, they always use hard
links (if at all).
MTAs don't rename parent directories.
> Folks, putting policy into the kernel is Wrong(tm). And that's precisely
> what you are advocating here.
Is putting options with a user-space interface (mount option, file
system option such as chattr) wrong as well? Is making fsync() more
compatible wrong?
-- Matthias Andree - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:00:32 EST