> I think Miklos' point is that it's not an "optimisation" because it's
> not optional. Optimisations are things where if you don't do them,
> the behaviour is still correct but slower.
>
> As far as I can tell from this discussion, the atomic lookup+create is
> a non-optional requirement.
Exactly.
Trond, you wrote this in an earlier discussion:
> > so the filesystem can delay returning the error from the open
> > operation until the other errors have been sorted out by the lookup
> > code.
>
> Intents are meant as optimisations, not replacements for existing
> operations. I'm therefore not really comfortable about having them
> return errors at all.
The case I described is not an optimization, so in that case you seem
to agree, that lookup intents are not the solution.
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
