Re: [PATCH] let fat handle MS_SYNCHRONOUS flag

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Things which I want to say here - do we really need the bogus
>> sync-mode?
>
> I'm not sure why you say it's bogus. Ext2 for instance has long had a
> mount option similar to this and it makes sense in volatile
> environments. Having the flag in the superblock seems a sensible way
> of doing it as well.

AFAIK, EXT2 doesn't update all metadata synchronously in sync-mode.

>> Current fatfs is not keeping the consistency of data on the disk at
>> all.  So, after all, the data on a disk is corrupting until all
>> syscalls finish, right?
>
> This is to protect against usage patters like mv a b, oh look, it's
> done, unplug. Not lots of active readers/writers.

I think we don't need synchronous update for it, probably we just need
to flush the buffers on each operations.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/