Re: [PATCH] write_sha1_buffer

2005-04-15 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > (This is also why we should write to a temp-file and then do an atomic > "rename()"). Btw, before anybody asks: I do _not_ think that we should do fsync() etc. We don't actually destroy any old state when we write a new object, so even if the mac

Re: [PATCH] write_sha1_buffer

2005-04-15 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Morten Welinder wrote: > > This write will failing sooner or later when someone's disk fills up. > That'll leave someone with a truncated file. Yes. On the other hand, we could try to do this even better, ie make the classic write loop that handles EAGAIN. No POSIX filesy

[PATCH] write_sha1_buffer

2005-04-15 Thread Morten Welinder
This write will failing sooner or later when someone's disk fills up. That'll leave someone with a truncated file. Signed-off-by: Morten Welinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- read-cache.c +++ read-cache.c2005-04-15 20:32:52.87168 -0400 @@ -276,9 +276,13 @@