From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [RFC] atomic create+open Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:59:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20051006175940.GA19766@mail.shareable.org> References: <1128616864.8396.32.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1128618447.8396.39.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1128620196.16534.20.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:63197 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751266AbVJFR7t (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:59:49 -0400 To: Trond Myklebust Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1128620196.16534.20.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Trond Myklebust wrote: > > Earlier you said, that intents are meant to be optional, so this > > atomicity requirement is getting further from the "intent" concept. > > No it is not. It is bang right in the middle of the intent concept. > > Intents are there in order to allow the filesystem to determine which > operation is calling lookup so that it can optimise for that particular > operation. I think Miklos' point is that it's not an "optimisation" because it's not optional. Optimisations are things where if you don't do them, the behaviour is still correct but slower. As far as I can tell from this discussion, the atomic lookup+create is a non-optional requirement. -- Jamie