I didn't think POSIX filesystem operations were allowed to be executed out
of order. I've never read any code, no matter how old, that took any
measures to allow for this.
Posted Mar 13, 2009 0:49 UTC (Fri) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)
[Link]
They're only out of order from the point of view of a system recovering from a crash. Otherwise, there'd be an even larger furor. :-) I think the way rename is used, it was always intended to have barrier semantics, and sane filesystems should respect that intent.
ext4 and data loss
Posted Mar 13, 2009 7:58 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Strongly seconded. I suppose nothing is ever really *guaranteed* about
post-crash state, so this is merely a QoI, but an important one.
(Memories of the Algol 68 standard, I think it was, going to some lengths
to define the behaviour of the system under unspecified circumstances in
which the power was cut, which were meant to include things like
earthquakes.)