Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:45:09 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: New copyfile system call - discuss before LSF? |
| |
On Sat 2013-03-30 13:08:39, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2013-03-30, at 12:49 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hmm, really? AFAICT it would be simple to provide an > > open_deleted_file("directory") syscall. You'd open_deleted_file(), > > copy source file into it, then fsync(), then link it into filesystem. > > > > That should have atomicity properties reflected. > > Actually, the open_deleted_file() syscall is quite useful for many > different things all by itself. Lots of applications need to create > temporary files that are unlinked at application failure (without a > race if app crashes after creating the file, but before unlinking). > It also avoids exposing temporary files into the namespace if other > applications are accessing the directory.
Hmm. open_deleted_file() will still need to get a directory... so it will still need a path. Perhaps open("/foo/bar/mnt", O_DELETED) would be acceptable interface? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |