On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Tim Connors <tconnors@rather.puzzling.org> wrote:
Not taking rename() as being an implicit barrier is braindead. ext4 fixed that. I don't believe XFS has for idealogical reasons. Instead of putting a small workaround that causes bugger-all impact on performance in kernel code, they insist that decades of userspace should change its behaviour instead.
Is relying on rename() as a barrier without using fsync(), fdatasync(), or sync() something that many applications do? The case of writing to a new file and then renaming it over the old one isn't such a common application usage pattern. It's used for updates to /etc/shadow etc (I'm sure those programs are solid), by rsync (Tridge is a great coder), and some editors (we have already established that most editors call fdatasync() etc). Where are all these broken applications? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/