| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: to compare journalised file systems |
| From: | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:09:48 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Stephen Tweedie <sct@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20021017000107.A21179@wotan.suse.de>; from ak@suse.de on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:01:07AM +0200 |
| References: | <20021016203853.GH27982@plato.local.lan> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210161738120.5976-100000@packetstorm.skreak.org> <20021016214759.GI27982@plato.local.lan> <20021017000107.A21179@wotan.suse.de> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
Hi, On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:01:07AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > No that's not true. The VFS doesn't know about these flags as far as > I know. You have to handle them in fs specific code. > > Even more interesting looking at the source and testing it at least append > only > is broken for ext2/ext3 - generic_file_llseek doesn't check for it > so while you're required to open such a file O_APPEND lseek still works fine. lseek is ignored on O_APPEND files --- the write always re-seeks to EOF. pwrite goes down that same code path too so it also gets the append enforced. In your testing were you testing real writes, or just the lseeks? Cheers, Stephen |
| Previous by Date: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Ethan Benson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Ethan Benson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |