On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:29:10PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:52:33 -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: > > > I think the first is more useful behavior than the last. Supporting it > > should be exactly the same as supporting what happens if the actual > > filesystem fills up. In this case, the filesystem is being requested to > > write more "than there is room for." > > Returning a short write for operations on regular files would > definitely be considered astonishing. The changes that you have made > should be considered flow control, not admission control, and should > appear to the user no differently than if we were waiting for a slow > disk to write something; i.e., the user thread should be blocked until > either the entire write completes, or the process is interrupted by a > signal.
So what _would_ be consistent for nfs_bio.c::nfs_write()? IO_UNIT is set for all write calls which means "atomic", and nfs_rslock() and O_APPEND appear to at least attempt this. Please take a detailed look at the current system and the changes... it's far less clear-cut than POLA dictates. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
