[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874nts8uf8.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:08:59 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
sfrench@...ba.org, sage@...dream.net, ericvh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/25] vfs: add i_op->atomic_create()
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> writes:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:22:10PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> Good point. Yes, ->create is probably worth getting rid of. Mkdir, I'm
>>> not so sure, but I'll look at what filesystems are doing.
>>
>> Btw, is there any good reason to keep ->atomic_open and ->atomic_create
>> separate? It seems like the instances in general share code anyway.
>
> ->atomic_open is called before lookup, ->atomic_create after lookup.
>
> How would we differentiate between the two if they were common? We
> could have a filesystem flag, but for example CEPH does weird things
> like using ->atomic_open for !O_CREAT and ->atomic_create for O_CREAT.
Or let the filesystem do the lookup in ->atomic_open if it wants (and
pass the need_lookup flag to the filesystem).
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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