Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] let fat handle MS_SYNCHRONOUS flag | From | OGAWA Hirofumi <> | Date | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:26:06 +0900 |
| |
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> writes:
>> Things which I want to say here - do we really need the bogus >> sync-mode? > > I'm not sure why you say it's bogus. Ext2 for instance has long had a > mount option similar to this and it makes sense in volatile > environments. Having the flag in the superblock seems a sensible way > of doing it as well.
AFAIK, EXT2 doesn't update all metadata synchronously in sync-mode.
>> Current fatfs is not keeping the consistency of data on the disk at >> all. So, after all, the data on a disk is corrupting until all >> syscalls finish, right? > > This is to protect against usage patters like mv a b, oh look, it's > done, unplug. Not lots of active readers/writers.
I think we don't need synchronous update for it, probably we just need to flush the buffers on each operations. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |