[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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


I think that tells people reading the headers a bit about what to
expect on older kernels too.

-- Jamie

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-30 18:47    [W:0.058 / U:43.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site