[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers
    Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > P.S. better naming suggestions for O_FULLSYNC welcome

    O_FULLSYNC might get confused with MacOS X's F_FULLSYNC, which means
    something else: fsync through hardware volatile write caches.

    (Might we even want to provide O_FULLSYNC and O_FULLDATASYNC to mean
    that, eventually?)

    O_ISYNC is a bit misleading if we don't really offer "flush just the
    inode state" by itself.

    So it should at least start with underscores: __O_ISYNC.

    How about __O_SYNC_NEW with

    #define O_SYNC (O_DSYNC|__O_SYNC_NEW)

    I think that tells people reading the headers a bit about what to
    expect on older kernels too.

    -- Jamie

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-30 18:47    [W:0.030 / U:17.824 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site