User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 10, 2009 16:37 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576)
In reply to: POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES by alexl
Parent article: POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

I have noticed a tendency in this discussion (I don't mean the responses to this article, but the overall discussion) that the 'POSIX-fundamentalist' faction is unwilling or unable to accept that saying 'I want A to happen iff B happens' is *not* the same as saying 'I want a guarantee that A and B happen'.


(Log in to post comments)

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 17, 2009 20:38 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

If you want both the write and the rename to happen, you'd have to fsync() the file *and* the directory. Which means that the open(), write(), fsync(the_file), close(), rename() sequence provides exactly the semantics you describe.

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 21, 2009 1:52 UTC (Mon) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]

That's the point though... that's /not/ what people in the discussion want, or are asking for.

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 21, 2009 13:45 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

*speechless*


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds