[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090423141006.GH2723@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:10:06 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Valerie Aurora Henson <vaurora@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fpathconf() for fsync() behavior
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:48:01AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>> So we can create a more finer-grained controlled system call ---
>> although I would suggest that we just add some extra flags to
>> sync_file_range() --- but it's doubtful that many application
>> programmers will use it.
>
> sync_file_range() seems the obvious avenue for new fsync flags.
>
> I even explored what it would take to add a "flush storage dev writeback
> cache, for this file" flag to sync_file_range(), rather unfortunately
> non-trivial given the current implementation's close ties to MM.
What I had roughly in mind was some (optional) calls to the filesystem
before and after the current implementations MM magic, but I haven't
thought very deeply on the subject yet, mainly because...
> But yeah... how many people will use these fancy new flags and features?
>
Yeah. That issue.
It would be nice to have some additional semantics, but in terms of
priorities, it's not the highest thing on my list in terms of itches
to scratch.
- Ted
--
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