lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
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




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-26 03:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans