[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080416115441.5c40c3c4@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:54:41 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: file offset corruption on 32-bit machines?
> Why not? Kernel syscalls are traditionally atomic, and Lennard seems
> to have found sentence in POSIX that says so.
Almost no call is atomic or has atomicity guarantees. There are specific
rules for certain disk access and pipe queueing but almost nothing else.
The same is as true (often more true) for all Unix systems
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists