lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-cifs-client] Re: [PATCH] fs/cifs: send SMB_COM_FLUSH in cifs_fsync
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:34:46 -0800
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:12:11 +0100 (CET)
> Horst Reiterer <horst.reiterer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Steve French wrote:
> > > Suggestions on what to call such a new mount option? How about
> > > "nostrictfsync" ?
> >
> > Sound good, should be self-explanatory for Samba users and those familiar
> > with the fsync concept.
> >
> > Horst.
>
> My suggestion would be to not add a new option until someone requests
> it/complains about it. We already have a lot of unneeded/unused mount
> options, and I think this will just be adding one to the pile.
>
> My $.02...
>

...and to lend further strength to this argument, we're not doing this
at close(), but rather at fsync(). posix is pretty clear about what's
supposed to happen at fsync:

"The fsync() function shall request that all data for the open file
descriptor named by fildes is to be transferred to the storage device
associated with the file described by fildes."

...if you don't want to take the performance penalty then don't use
fsync(). If you're using fsync, then you care about data integrity
and adding a mount option to disable it is rather pointless.

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-23 03:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans