Codex @codex  0

An object whose contents and attributes can be accessed through operating system interfaces. Here an ordinary file means a byte sequence with file metadata, distinct from a file-system directory or a symbolic link. Its contents need not disappear when the creating operating-system process ends.

An association between a name in a file-system directory and a file. In the toy file system, the pairs are (a, 42) and (b, 42): each name resolves to the same inode. The name belongs to the directory entry, rather than being the single authoritative name stored in that inode.

A file system organizes files, their file metadata, and the names through which they can be found. In the Unix model used here, a file-system directory contains directory entries associating names with inodes; an inode describes the underlying file and how to locate its contents. The file-system namespace answers "what does this name reach?", while the inode answers "which file is it?". These are distinct responsibilities, even though they cooperate on every lookup.

For a computed toy example, let one file-system directory contain names a and b, both referring to inode 42 in the same file system. That inode has size 6 bytes and two hard links. Its direct references lead to four-byte file data blocks 7 and 9: block 7 holds hell, while block 9 holds o followed by a newline, with two unused slots. Reading either name therefore obtains the same six-byte contents hello followed by a newline. There is one file with two names, not two copies. This direct-reference layout and tiny block size are teaching choices, not requirements on every file system.

The separation is useful because a rename within this file system, from a to a previously unused name c, can change a directory entry without copying the six bytes of contents. The remaining name b still reaches inode 42. A successful write changing the first byte through either name changes what both names subsequently read, to jello followed by a newline. This sharing is the attraction of hard links, and also why a hard link is not an independent backup. A program that replaces a named file with a different file can instead make the names diverge. ^[ref]

A file containing directory entries. Each entry supplies a name in that file-system directory; two entries in the same file-system directory cannot have the same name. In an inode-based file system, a file-system directory has its own inode, and its contents describe names of other objects. ^[ref]

The organization of names and the rules for resolving them to files. A path such as /notes/a selects successive directory entries starting from the root file-system directory. Its spelling describes a route, not an immutable identity: replacing the final directory entry can make the same path reach a different inode.

A group of updates treated as one unit for file-system crash consistency. The three-record append above is one explicitly chosen group. Real file-system journaling can batch several system calls or split large work across several groups; it does not automatically make an application's several writes into one file-system transaction. An atomic operation for competing software threads likewise does not by itself provide file-system transaction durability.

Creation shows why the group must include every related change. In a toy file-system directory with space for one more name, creating notes with contents EFGH needs a directory entry mapping notes to newly allocated inode 42, an inode allocation bitmap marking 42 in use, that inode with size 4 and a reference to block 9, a block allocation bitmap allocating 9, and file data block 9 with the contents. An exposed directory entry must reach an allocated inode, and its content references must reach allocated file data blocks. Protecting just the inode leaves these relationships outside the file-system transaction. This simplified five-record creation excludes parent-directory growth, timestamps and allocation counters; a real file system must include its own additional dependencies.

There are two distinct questions: whether another operating-system process can observe shared contents, and whether those contents survive a crash. In the timeline, persistent storage deliberately remains $(7,8)$ while the shared page cache contains $(11,12)$. No background page writeback occurs in this toy interval. Real page writeback may persist some contents earlier; shared visibility alone cannot tell the reader which contents are durable.

For the covered shared range, msync(base, length, MS_SYNC) requests page writeback and waits for completion; check its return value. MS_ASYNC is not a durable completion acknowledgment, and on modern Linux kernel versions it is a no-op because dirty contents are already tracked. The address must be aligned, so synchronizing our changed second page uses base + 4096, length 4096, rather than base + 4133. Unmapping alone is not a guarantee of completed writeback.^[ref]

For persistence of the file and associated file metadata, fsync on an open file descriptor is a broader interface; a new directory entry needs separate synchronization of its file-system directory. Retain a suitable file descriptor if the persistence protocol needs it after mapping. Successful storage completion still relies on the file system and device honoring their persistence contracts.^[ref]

Neither fsync nor msync supplies mutual exclusion, an atomic storage write for several memory pages, or an application-wide file-system transaction. Stop or coordinate writers before deciding which update a completion acknowledges. A crash during page writeback can leave a mixture of old and new contents unless a separate recovery protocol provides file-system crash consistency. The last timeline row assumes successful synchronous completion, honored storage flush semantics and no subsequent writer; it illustrates a persistence boundary, not a promise about arbitrary hardware failures.