From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:20:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:20:06 -0400 Received: from tapu.f00f.org ([66.60.186.129]:16092 "EHLO tapu.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:20:05 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:19:46 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Keith Owens Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS updated Message-ID: <20020414081946.GA862@tapu.f00f.org> In-Reply-To: <20020413185249.GA31470@tapu.f00f.org> <32583.1018742876@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 10:07:56AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: Write in append mode must be atomic in the kernel. Whether a user space write in append mode is atomic or not depends on how many write() syscalls it takes to pass the data into the kernel. Each write() append will be atomic but multiple writes can be interleaved. Up to what size? I assume I cannot assume O_APPEND atomicity for (say) 100M writes? --cw