lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 26 Feb 2008 07:59:21 +0000
FromJamie Lokier <>
SubjectRe: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:26:50 +0000 Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
> 
> > (It would be nicer if sync_file_range()
> > took a vector of ranges for better elevator scheduling, but let's
> > ignore that :-)
> 
> Two passes:
> 
> Pass 1: shove each of the segments into the queue with
>         SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE|SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE
> 
> Pass 2: wait for them all to complete and return accumulated result
>         with SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER

Thanks.

Seems ok, though being able to cork the I/O until the last one would
be a bonus (like TCP_MORE...  SYNC_FILE_RANGE_MORE?)

I'm imagining I'd omit the SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE.  Is there a
reason why you have it there?  The man page isn't very enlightening.

-- Jamie
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-26 09:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2008