[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectadding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:34:59PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Then again they already don't get what they expect and never did,
> > so if we clear document and communicate the O_SYNC (that is Linux
> > O_SYNC) requirement we might be able to go with this.
> I'm thinking, while we're looking at this, that now is a really good
> time to split up O_SYNC and O_DSYNC.
> We have separate fsync and fdatasync, so it should be quite tidy now.
> Then we can document using O_DSYNC on Linux, which is fine for older
> versions because it has the same value as O_SYNC at the moment.

Technically we could easily make O_SYNC really mean O_SYNC and implement
a seaprate O_DSYNC at the kernel level.

The question is how to handle this at the libc level. Currently glibc
defines O_DSYNC to be O_SYNC. We would need to update glibc to pass
through O_DSYNC for newer kernels and make sure it falls back to O_SYNC
for olders. I'm not sure how feasible this is, but maybe Ulrich has
some better ideas.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-27 19:13    [W:0.170 / U:1.988 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site