[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf] Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF
- From: Joel Becker <jlbec evilplan org>
- To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso mit edu>, Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler gmail com>, Dave Chinner <david fromorbit com>, lsf lists linux-foundation org, "linux-scsi vger kernel org" <linux-scsi vger kernel org>, James Bottomley <James Bottomley hansenpartnership com>, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel vger kernel org>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf] Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:43:03 -0700
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:19:07AM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> The closest place that we have to any official documentation about
> O_DIRECT semantics is the open(2) man page in the Linux manpages, and
> it doesn't say anything about this. It does give a recommendation
> against not mixing buffered and O_DIRECT accesses to the same file,
> but it does promise that things will work in that case. (Even if it
> does, do we really want to make the promise that it will always work?)
No, we do not. Some OSes will silently turn buffered I/O into
direct I/O if another file already has it opened O_DIRECT. Some OSes
will fail the write, or the open, or both, if it doesn't match the mode
of an existing fd. Some just leave O_DIRECT and buffered access
inconsistent.
I think that Linux should strive to make the mixed
buffered/direct case work; it's the nicest thing we can do. But we
should not promise it.
Joel
--
Life's Little Instruction Book #24
"Drink champagne for no reason at all."
http://www.jlbec.org/
jlbec evilplan org
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]