Messages in this thread | | | From | "Myklebust, Trond" <> | Subject | Re: New copyfile system call - discuss before LSF? | Date | Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:57:01 +0000 |
| |
On Mar 30, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> 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
...and what's the big plan to make this work on anything other than ext4 and btrfs?
Cheers, Trond
| |