[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:57:50AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> Well, no. fsync() didn't appear in early Unix, so what people were
> actually willing to live with was restoring from backups if the system
> crashed. I'd argue that things are somewhat better these days,
> especially now that we're used to filesystems that don't require us to
> fsync(), close(), fsync the directory and possibly jump through even
> more hoops if faced with a pathological interpretation of POSIX.
> Progress is a good thing. The initial behaviour of ext4 in this respect
> wasn't progress.

And, hey, fsync didn't make POSIX proper until 1996. It's not like
authors were able to depend on it for a significant period of time
before ext3 hit the scene.

(It could be argued that most relevant Unices implemented fsync() even
before then, so its status in POSIX was broadly irrelevant. The obvious
counterargument is that most relevant Unix filesystems ensure that data
is written before a clobbering rename() is carried out, so POSIX is
again not especially releant)
Matthew Garrett |

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-27 07:25    [W:0.339 / U:34.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site