Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:14:26 +0000 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.29 |
| |
> Agreed, we need a middle ground. We need a transition path that > recognizes that ext3 won't be the dominant filesystem for Linux in > perpetuity, and that ext3's data=ordered semantics will someday no > longer be a major factor in application design. fbarrier() semantics > might be one approach; there may be others. It's something we need to > figure out.
Would making close imply fbarrier() rather than fsync() work for this ? That would give people the ordering they want even if they are less careful but wouldn't give the media error cases - which are less interesting.
Alan
| |