Re: Linux 2.6.29

[Jeff Garzik]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I disagree with this approach. If fsync() means anything other than "Get 
> my data on disk and then return" then we're breaking guarantees to 
> applications.

Due to lack of storage dev writeback cache flushing, we are indeed 
breaking that guarantee in many situations...


> The problem is that you're insisting that the only way 
> applications can ensure that their requests occur in order is to use 
> fsync(), which will achieve that but also provides guarantees above and 
> beyond what the majority of applications want.

That remains a true statement...   without the *sync* syscalls, you 
still do not have a _guarantee_ writes occur in a certain order.

	Jeff


--
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/