From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: reject unknown open flags
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:14:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyKLCCe2OFCnyLYPDMT+DNWhYRQiLwFx1UU1+sf9w3oKA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ec12e823-5c32-3269-039a-1b97ab3d4819@cs.ucla.edu>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'm assuming you'd also possible want to be able to use F_SETFL to set
>> O_ATOMIC after the fact
>
> Just for fun, one thread can set O_ATOMIC at the same time another thread is
> doing a 'write'....
I'm sure that falls under "if you break it, you get to keep both
pieces". IOW, I don't think anybody will ever say that the concurrent
write has to have some particular semantics wrt the concurrent
O_ATOMIC. Maybe *part* of the write will be done with some semantics,
and part of the write will be done with other semantics.
My guess is that there is going to be very few O_ATOMIC users anyway,
and they'll very carefully set it once and test it (or not even test
it - just make it be a configuration flag and tell people "don't ask
for O_ATOMIC if your system doesn't support it")
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-30 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-30 16:33 Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 16:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] fs: add a VALID_OPEN_FLAGS Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 16:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] fs: reject unknown open flags Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 17:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 17:08 ` RFC: " Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 17:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 18:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 18:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 20:06 ` Boaz Harrosh
2017-03-30 19:02 ` Paul Eggert
2017-03-30 19:14 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2017-03-30 19:22 ` Florian Weimer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+55aFyKLCCe2OFCnyLYPDMT+DNWhYRQiLwFx1UU1+sf9w3oKA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).