Better get the basics straight [LWN.net]

Better get the basics straight

Posted Mar 17, 2009 22:53 UTC (Tue) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)
In reply to: Better get the basics straight by butlerm
Parent article: Better than POSIX?

POSIX has a mechanism to do precisely that:

SYNOPSIS long fpathconf(int fildes, int name); long pathconf(const char *path, int name); DESCRIPTION The fpathconf() and pathconf() functions shall determine the current value of a configurable limit or option (variable) that is associated with a file or directory.

I don't see a problem with adding platform-specific values for name: if an conscientious application asks for _LINUX_SAFE_RENAME on a system that doesn't even know it exists, pathconf will just return -1 and the application will say, "oh, okay. I need to use fsync."

If the POSIX people ever get around to standardizing safe semantics for rename, then Linux's pathconf can just support both the original and the standard name.

(Log in to post comments)

Better get the basics straight

Posted Mar 18, 2009 1:00 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

You'll probably need this on a per-FS basis, because you could mount an FS on Linux that doesn't support this, although the system may generally support it.

Better get the basics straight

Posted Mar 18, 2009 1:04 UTC (Wed) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]

You'll probably need this on a per-FS basis

Of course it's per-filesystem. That's the whole point of using pathconf instead of sysconf.

Better get the basics straight

Posted Mar 18, 2009 1:11 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

OOPS! My bad, sorry :-(

Better get the basics straight

Posted Mar 19, 2009 7:27 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

That would be one way of dealing with different filesystem semantics.

I would hope that the operation "write data to file" gets less complex, not more. There is already a little dance of calls to be made (Ted writes about it). If we add logic on the application level to handle that some filesystems expect fsync on the directory, some on only the file and some manage without, it becomes even more so. In tens of thousands of applications.

But this is only vaguely related to the data ordering issue. In an interactive program or where performance is critical you may not want to wait until data is commited to disk. Latency kills.