Re: Zero length files - an alternative approach?

[David Newall]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/