Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
I am stating that rename should not be necessary to create a barrier.
don't require application writers to add renames if they wouldn't otherwise need them just because they want a barrier.
what's needed is a application barrier() call
Posted Sep 9, 2009 19:06 UTC (Wed) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)
Posted Sep 9, 2009 20:55 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
History (re: what's needed is a application barrier() call
Posted Sep 10, 2009 16:18 UTC (Thu) by davecb (subscriber, #1574)
Posted Sep 10, 2009 20:18 UTC (Thu) by aegl (guest, #37581)
Nope. "rename" wasn't in V6 (see http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V6/usr/sys/ken/sysent.c.html).
"the other was open(... O_EXCL|O_CREAT)"
V6 open(2) didn't have all those fancy O_* options. You just got the choice of FREAD, FWRITE, or both.
Applications in V6 era typically used "link(2)" as their locking primitive (create a randomly named tempfile, then link that to a statically named lockfile. If the link call succeeds, you own the lock. If you get EEXIST, then someone else does).
Posted Sep 10, 2009 21:03 UTC (Thu) by davecb (subscriber, #1574)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds