[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CAEA2F.5000801@garzik.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:36:31 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I disagree with this approach. If fsync() means anything other than "Get
> my data on disk and then return" then we're breaking guarantees to
> applications.
Due to lack of storage dev writeback cache flushing, we are indeed
breaking that guarantee in many situations...
> The problem is that you're insisting that the only way
> applications can ensure that their requests occur in order is to use
> fsync(), which will achieve that but also provides guarantees above and
> beyond what the majority of applications want.
That remains a true statement... without the *sync* syscalls, you
still do not have a _guarantee_ writes occur in a certain order.
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