![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton wrote: > OK, there _might_ be a real-world case: threads appending logging > information to a flat file. Trivially workable-around with a userspace > lock, or by switching to stdio (same thing). > > Yes, really we should fix it. But it's not worth adding more overhead to > do so. So the fix would involve widespread (but simple) change, to draw > that f_pos update inside i_mutex. Didn't Linus explicitly made the decision not to add synchronisation for writes with the same file? http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/msg/ef66c762e737bab7?hl=en& Is the closest I could find, but I'm sure he said something similar, specifically about write(2) vs write(2). -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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: 2006-04-13 09:36 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||