Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:04:17 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air |
| |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 06:37:36PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Davide Libenzi wrote: > > >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, walt wrote: > > > > > >>Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > >>>> > >>>The best way to fix this isn't to add locking to rsync, but to add two > >>>files inside or outside the tree, each one is a sequence number, so you > >>>fetch file1 first, then you rsync and you fetch file2, then you compare > >>>them. If they're the same, your rsync copy is coherent. It's the same > >>>locking we introduced with vgettimeofday... > >>> > >>How is this different from writing one file named LOCK while updating > >>the tree? > >> > > > >This is even simpler I believe. If you happen to fetch it, you restart the > >rsync. Peter ? > >(maybe the name LOCK should be replaced by something more "uniq") > > > > > > What happens if the the tree is updated while the client is fetching it?
the usual problem, and the reason we need a sequence number (increased before and after the repo update). A file lock not. - 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/
| |