Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:59:21 +0000 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync() |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:26:50 +0000 Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote: > > > (It would be nicer if sync_file_range() > > took a vector of ranges for better elevator scheduling, but let's > > ignore that :-) > > Two passes: > > Pass 1: shove each of the segments into the queue with > SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE|SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE > > Pass 2: wait for them all to complete and return accumulated result > with SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER
Thanks.
Seems ok, though being able to cork the I/O until the last one would be a bonus (like TCP_MORE... SYNC_FILE_RANGE_MORE?)
I'm imagining I'd omit the SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE. Is there a reason why you have it there? The man page isn't very enlightening.
-- Jamie
| |