[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090827171044.GA5427@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:10:44 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:34:59PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Then again they already don't get what they expect and never did,
> > so if we clear document and communicate the O_SYNC (that is Linux
> > O_SYNC) requirement we might be able to go with this.
>
> I'm thinking, while we're looking at this, that now is a really good
> time to split up O_SYNC and O_DSYNC.
>
> We have separate fsync and fdatasync, so it should be quite tidy now.
>
> Then we can document using O_DSYNC on Linux, which is fine for older
> versions because it has the same value as O_SYNC at the moment.
Technically we could easily make O_SYNC really mean O_SYNC and implement
a seaprate O_DSYNC at the kernel level.
The question is how to handle this at the libc level. Currently glibc
defines O_DSYNC to be O_SYNC. We would need to update glibc to pass
through O_DSYNC for newer kernels and make sure it falls back to O_SYNC
for olders. I'm not sure how feasible this is, but maybe Ulrich has
some better ideas.
--
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