Wow, this is a sore subject. Check the archives of this list for a long version of this discussion.
David Sent from my phone. Please excuse misspellings and terseness. > On Nov 30, 2016, at 5:04 AM, Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote: > > Hi guys, I know this is a noob question, but I'd really like to understand > this aspect of the kernel design. > > I'm planning to experiment on the topic, modifying chan.c so that the > semantics of create(2) match those of create(5) about existing files. I guess > that the number of callers to fix is manageable. > > But since I can't see any good reason for the race being there in the first > place (except maybe backward compatibility with unix, but that was not a > problem for Plan 9 designers), I'm pretty sure I'm missing something obvious. > > > So, please, do you know why the create syscall does not simply return an > error if the file already exists? > You might save me a few headache... > > > Thanks for your help! > > > Giacomo > > > > 2016-05-24 23:25 GMT+02:00 Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it>: >> I'm pretty curious about the create(2)/create(5) race described in a comment >> in namec (see >> https://github.com/brho/plan9/blob/master/sys/src/9/port/chan.c#L1564-L1603) >> >> Does anyone know or remember the reasoning behind this design? >> >> What was wrong about using the create(5) semantics for the create(2) syscall? >> >> >> Giacomo >
