Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:44:11 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |