lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> That's because this thread is the first time I've heard that Linux
> O_SYNC was really the weaker O_DSYNC in disguise, and judging from the
> many Googlings I've done about O_SYNC in applications and on different
> OS, it'll be news to other people too.
>
> (I always thought the "#define O_DSYNC O_SYNC" was because Linux
> didn't implement the weaker O_DSYNC).

It looks like we're not the only ones. AIX has:

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/systems/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.aix.genprogc/doc/genprogc/fileio.htm

Before the O_DSYNC open mode existed, AIX applied O_DSYNC semantics to
O_SYNC. For binary compatibility reasons, this behavior still
exists. If true O_SYNC behavior is required, then both O_DSYNC and
O_SYNC open flags must be specified. Exporting the XPG_SUS_ENV=ON
environment variable also enables true O_SYNC behavior.

-- Jamie


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-28 18:53    [W:1.384 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site