From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755614AbaCDAHQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:07:16 -0500 Received: from science.horizon.com ([71.41.210.146]:56589 "HELO science.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755286AbaCDAHO (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:07:14 -0500 Date: 3 Mar 2014 19:07:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20140304000711.19992.qmail@science.horizon.com> From: "George Spelvin" To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: Update of file offset on write() etc. is non-atomic with I/O Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@horizon.com In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Al Viro wrote: >> Most of the cases have it kept separately in registers, actually - there's >> a reason why fdget() and friends are inlined. > Yes. And bit test and set ops on registers are actually cheaper than > playing around with bytes. Ah. I cut & pasted the code into a separate file and compiled it out of line. But I stubbed a lot, so it went to memory. My bad. > Oh, and George, your email setup is broken. Gmail thinks your emails > are spam. I'm not sure why (the usual spf problems do not apply), but > it's possibly because your name and email looks made up. Thanks, but damn, I wish they'd give a little more information. The horizon.com MX record is correct, the mail server's forward and reverse DNS matches, the SMTP server is a little creaky but I think it's completely standards-compliant. I'm using bsd mailx, which is *definitely* creaky (you'll notice a complete lack of MIME or User-Agent headers), but again, it's kind of the baseline standard for RFC(2)822 e-mail. The one infelicity I'm aware of is that I cut & pasted the headers from an on-line mail archive, but mailx doesn't have an easy way to add an In-Reply-To: header. Perhaps a Subject: beginning with "Re:" and no In-Reply-To: looks odd. But damnifino.