[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CADB55.8050400@garzik.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:33:09 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
CC: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, David Rees <drees76@...il.com>,
Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] issue storage device flush via sync_blockdev() (was Re:
Linux 2.6.29)
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ric Wheeler wrote:
> What do you think sync_blockdev() does? What is its purpose?
> Twofold:
> (1) guarantee all user data is flushed out before a major event
> (unmount, journal close, unplug, poweroff, explosion, ...)
> (2) As a sledgehammer hack for simple or legacy filesystems that do not
> wish or need the complexity of transactional protection. sync_blockdev()
> is intentionally used in lieu of complexity for the following
> filesystems: HFS, HFS+, ADFS, AFFS, FAT, bfs, UFS, NTFS, qnx4.
> My patch adds needed guarantees, only for the above filesystems, where
> none were present before.
To be specific, I was referring to fsync(2) guarantees being added to
HFS, HFS+, ADFS, AFFS, FAT, bfs, UFS, NTFS, and qnx4.
Other filesystems, besides those in the list, gain the flush-on-unmount
action (a rare but useful addition) with my patch.
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists