Messages in this thread | | | From | Greg Lindahl <> | Subject | Re: Another Way | Date | Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:41:45 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
> First, don't confuse rewriting with in-kernel compound files. > They're separate issues.
No, they're related:
Why do we possibly want in-kernel compound files? Efficiency. But if rewriting is efficient enough, we don't need in-kernel compound files.
> And over a network rewriting is very bad. Writing 30Mb is slow.
Which is why a smart emacs installation writes autosave files to local disk. You only have to pay the rewriting price when you save or exit emacs.
If this is efficient enough, you have no need for in-kernel compound files.
BTW, error recovery for in-kernel compound files over a network is going to be a pain. Personally I would rather deal the error semantics of rewriting, which is pretty straight-forward: write new file, rename to old name. If either step fails, you still have a valid old file. With an in-kernel compound file implementation, it's much much more complicated.
-- g
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |