On 2013-03-30, at 14:45, Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote:
> On Sat 2013-03-30 13:08:39, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On 2013-03-30, at 12:49 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hmm, really? AFAICT it would be simple to provide an
>>> open_deleted_file("directory") syscall. You'd open_deleted_file(),
>>> copy source file into it, then fsync(), then link it into filesystem.
>>>
>>> That should have atomicity properties reflected.
>>
>> Actually, the open_deleted_file() syscall is quite useful for many
>> different things all by itself. Lots of applications need to create
>> temporary files that are unlinked at application failure (without a
>> race if app crashes after creating the file, but before unlinking).
>> It also avoids exposing temporary files into the namespace if other
>> applications are accessing the directory.
>
> Hmm. open_deleted_file() will still need to get a directory... so it
> will still need a path. Perhaps open("/foo/bar/mnt", O_DELETED) would
> be acceptable interface?
Yes, that would be reasonable, and/or possibly openat(fd, NULL,
AT_FDCWD|AT_UNLINKED)?
Cheers, Andreas--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
