From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 16:09:30 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] failure atomic writes for file systems and block devices Message-ID: <20170301150930.GF12248@lst.de> References: <20170228145737.19016-1-hch@lst.de> <20170228232204.GB5269@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170228232204.GB5269@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 03:22:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > (Assuming there's no syncv involved here...?) No. While I think we could implement it for XFS similar how we roll transactions over multiple inodes for a few transactions, the use case is much more limited, and the potential pitfalls are much bigger. > > have to check the F_IOINFO fcntl before, which is a bit of a killer. > > Because of that I've also not implemented any other validity checks > > yet, as they might make thing even worse when an open on a not supported > > file system or device fails, but not on an old kernel. Maybe we need > > a new open version that checks arguments properly first? > > Does fcntl(F_SETFL...) suffer from this? Yes.