[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: OT: why no file copy() libc/syscall ??
On Thursday 20 November 2003 13:44, Justin Cormack wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 19:08, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> If you really want a filesystem that supports efficient copying you
> probably want it to have the equivalent of COW blocks, so that a copy
> just sets up a few pointers, and the copy only happens when the original
> or copied files are changed.

Ummmm... I REALLY don't like COW on a disk. Much too big a chance that the
filesystem will deadlock, and with no recovery method. (oversubscribed, then
crash, corrupting the homeblock, repair (committing journal?) requires
space... no space... therefore mostly dead. You'd have to be able to mount
without the journal or the homeblock, then delete something, then commit the
journal, dismount, recover the rest-- though this might be overboard, the
homebock might not even be damaged).

> But basically you wont get a syscall until you have a filesystem with
> semantics that only maps onto this sort of operation.

I belive NFSv3/4 has a file copy request included. And I understand that
the SAMBA server does too.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.091 / U:0.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site