In article <3C69FB14.167B899E@zip.com.au> you write:
| Bill Davidsen wrote:
| >
| > > But we want sync to be useful.
| >
| > No one has proposed otherwise. Unless you think that a possible hang is
| > useful, the questions becomes adding all dirty buffers to the elevator,
| > then (a) waiting or (b) returning. Either satisfies SuSv2.
|
| errr. Bill. I wrote the patch. Please take this as a sign
| that I'm not happy with the current implementation :)
Sorry, I had been sitting at a keyboard for about 16 hours when I typed
that, and didn't look at the sender... Lot's of other typos in there as
well, sign of need for 3-4 hours sleep.
But I think sync(2) as a checkpoint, write out all dirty at the moment
of sync call, is fine and deterministic, and all that.
That serves the shutdown case as well, if there is a process in some
unkillable state, but somehow still writing, at least the system will go
down. I'm not sure any process not killable with kill -9 is able to do
anything, but I won't bet on it.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:55 EST