[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090327183214.2e73b6a3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:32:14 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
> more common either. If you have a desktop app that uses fsync(), that
> application is DEAD IN THE WATER if people are doing anything else on the
> machine. Those multi-second pauses aren't going to make people happy.
We added threading about ten years ago.
> So the fact is, "people should always use fsync" simply isn't a realistic
> expectation, nor is it historically accurate.
Far too many people don't - and it is unfortunate but people should learn
to write quality software.
>
> Alternatives should be looked at. For desktop apps, the best alternatives
> are likely simply stronger default consistency guarantees. Exactly the
> "we don't guarantee that your data hits the disk, but we do guarantee that
> if you renamed on top of another file, you'll not have lost _both_
> contents".
Rename is a really nasty case and the standards don't help at all here so
I agree entirely. There *isn't* a way to write a correct portable
application that achieves that guarantee without the kernel making it for
you.
--
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