| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: to compare journalised file systems |
| From: | Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:10:15 -0800 |
| In-reply-to: | <20021017000107.A21179@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-copies-to: | nobody |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20021016203853.GH27982@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210161738120.5976-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021016214759.GI27982@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021017000107.A21179@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
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. go look at fs/open.c these calls are using the IS_IMMUTABLE and IS_APPEND macros to check and enforce these flags. > 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. > It has probably bitrotted long ago. that would be a bug to be fixed. > So if you want to implement it for XFS it may be a good idea to fix it > in ext2 first. sure -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Stephen C. Tweedie |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Ethan Benson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Stephen C. Tweedie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Olaf Frączyk |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |