On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
quoted text
> Then you have just reinvented the transactional userspace API that people
> often want to replace POSIX API with.  Maybe one day they will succeed.
>
> But "POSIX API replacement" is an area never short of proposals... :)

Well, I think the goal is not to *replace* the POSIX API or even
provide "transactional" guarantees.  The performance penalty for
atomic transactions is pretty high, and most programs (like GIT) don't
really give a damn, as they provide that on a higher level.

It's like the difference between a modern SMP system that supports
memory barriers and write snooping and one of the theoretical
"transactional memory" designs that have never caught on.

To be honest I think we could provide much better data consistency
guarantees and remove a lot of fsync() calls with just a basic
per-filesystem barrier() call.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/