[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Major JFFS2 bug (?)

Vipin.Malik@xxxxxxx.com said:
> All true statements, and I don't disagree with any of them, except-
> why can't we say that if we define "a complete operation", as asked by
> you above, to be a single write() command to a fd, then why is it
> asking too much to either gurantee the older data if write did not
> complete (in case of pwr failure) or all new data if write *did*
> complete.

We could possibly provide that guarantee in JFFS{,2} even though it's not 
clear that POSIX requires it. But what good would it actually do you?

Bear in mind that write() is perfectly entitled to return having written 
fewer data than you requested. So you can't guarantee that you get the 
atomicity you want anyway, you have to do the transactions in userspace 
anyway, and the whole game becomes pointless.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxx.com