From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:49:59 -0800 From: Roman Shaposhnik In-reply-to: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; delsp=yes; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <41C79A6A-3A01-4AD3-A73C-BFDA28439FE5@sun.com> <4bdece4cd73b46e7fe957da67fa215c6@plan9.bell-labs.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] 9pfuse and O_APPEND Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a7db36e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:23 AM, Russ Cox wrote: > Append-only and exclusive-use are properties of files > and need to be enforced uniformly across all clients > to be meaningful. They must be per-file, not per-fd. Two questions: 1. But before I ask this one: I don't deny that per-file append-only is *extremely* useful. My question is a different one: what is the danger of N clients accesing the file X in append-only mode and M clients accesing it in random access mode? Could you, please, give a concrete scenario? 2. Could you, please, answer the question in the original email of whether the kind of trivial patch (for the real thing you also need to handle O_APPEND in the fusecreate) I provided would be acceptable for the inclusion into Hg? I have no problem maintaining the extra code on the side, but if the change is deemed *not* to be acceptable that translates into it being dangerous or not good enough. And if that's the case I'd really appreciate an explanation to be given. Thanks, Roman.