Re: [PATCH] Re: relayfs documentation sucks?

[bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 10:43:40AM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:

> It is racey - in this mode, there's nothing to keep the kernel from
> writing as much as it wants before the user side has a chance to read
> any of it.  The only way this can be used safely is to make sure the
> kernel side isn't writing anything when the client is reading.  This
> would be typical of a flight-recording usage i.e. kernel writes a
> bunch of data continuously, then stops and allows the client to read
> whatever's in there.

Or by numbering entries written out, when in flight-recording mode you
wouldn't want to block the kernel.

>  > In fact, it appears this might even happen in non-overwrite mode.
> 
> It shouldn't ever be able to happen in non-overwrite mode - if it
> did, it would be a bug.  Can you be more specific as to how you see
> this happening in this mode?

Yeah - you're right. The misunderstanding is because in both cases
(overwrite and non-overwrite) data is lost, except that in one case you lose
old data, and in the other new data.

It might be a good idea to document this as well.

Btw, I've already uncovered interesting things using relayfs, but I still
don't see the case for having it merged :-)

Thanks for your answers, I think I get it all now.

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://netherlabs.nl              Open and Closed source services