From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d6f01a357b7f98ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: mhamel_98@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Direct_Io for Filesystem question
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <dbd243e1-dbf9-43cf-a2ff-6d70e5327cab@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <817032b7-4e8a-4589-9e44-00e7aef1fb06@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
	<io6Mk.402077$yE1.45541@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 132.228.195.206
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1224803676 15303 127.0.0.1 (23 Oct 2008 23:14:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:14:36 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=132.228.195.206;
	posting-account=5z8IJQkAAAAuH1CVqapXiEqPOXq8UfDM
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET
	CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2476
Date: 2008-10-23T16:14:35-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 23, 2:54=A0pm, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org> wrote:

> You must serialize all accesses to the same file object.

I'm not *certain* I understand what you are saying, but my
interpretation of it led me to wrapping the direct_io.file_type and
its functionality in a protected type and bingo, all is well.  I'm
curious if you meant something altogether different.

I guess "serializing access" should have been more obvious, and it did
occur to me (utilizing a protected type), I just felt since I wasn't
stomping on someone else's state I could bypass protecting the object,
guess not.

Thank you for the help!