![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Alan Cox wrote: > > Quality for whom ? There is a measurable cost to all that extra locking > which will hurt everyone. Given existing kernels don't make the > guarantee and SuS v3 does not make the guarantee the apps that need it > will continue to do the extra work themselves anyway. True. > And of course I too would like to know if anyone is hitting O_APPEND > examples of this problem and if so on what fs .... Well, Dan already said that he doesn't see it with O_APPEND (aka ">>"), but yes, other filesystems may not be that lucky. I'd actually not be surprised if the O_APPEND thing is tested by some of the FS stress tools, so I suspect all the regular filesystems get it right. Of course, since most of them - at least the local ones - use the same generic framework, that's an even safer bet. NFS etc is very special, of course, especially in the presense of clients on different machines. At that point, I wouldn't guarantee a whole lot. Linus - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-04-14 01:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||