[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:0.020 / U:1.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site